As grandiose schemes to officially extend development boundaries hover over the Maltese countryside, the eternal acne of illegal rooms continues to infect our land.

Like limpets, from Marsascala to Mellieħa, these constructions cling to existence as their owners thrash the planning system to death, trying to get a sanctioning of their illegal works granted. In a climate that is brick happy and mortar mad under the current administration they often succeed, as they have done in the past.

Whether it is another ‘agricultural tool room’ for a weekend farmer with a bean patch who lives a short drive away or a ‘boathouse’ for a family of seaside picnickers without so much as a canoe between them, their fervour is extreme.

At present there are two cases pending which could open the floodgates if sanctioned:

‘Boathouses’ at St Thomas Bay. If the planning authority’s refusal to sanction a second storey built illegally on an existing boathouse is overturned by the appeals board – a body outside and independent of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority – this could set an ugly precedent. Photo: Jason Borg‘Boathouses’ at St Thomas Bay. If the planning authority’s refusal to sanction a second storey built illegally on an existing boathouse is overturned by the appeals board – a body outside and independent of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority – this could set an ugly precedent. Photo: Jason Borg

A final decision on a boathouse turned residence in a cluster of boathouses at St Thomas Bay, which has been hauled through the planning system several times over the past 20 years, is to come before an appeals tribunal in April.

The original pre-1968 structure was fitted out with a kitchen/living/dining room plus a partitioned bathroom. The applicant then built, and applied to sanction, another floor which he had added with space for a bedroom and walk-in wardrobe, according to the planning application.

There was a 1994 attempt claiming that the extension applied for was “to erect a store for fishing tackle at first floor”.

Seeing through this ruse, the planning authority refused to sanction the illegal extension when it was built. Undeterred, the applicant simply found another architect and carried on with further attempts to pole-vault any planning barriers that stood in the way of having a two-storey summer residence by the sea.

While it was pointed out by parties representing the developers that some two-storey units already exist it could not be confirmed if permits for these existed since “all the records of Marsacala have been lost”.

In the case officer report, condemnation of the illegal development labels this extension as excessive with a visual impact on the surrounding environment:

“The development proposed to be sanctioned is objectionable since it does not have any agricultural usage. This residence is not compatible and does not compliment the environment in which it is located. As a structure it does not blend with the rural landscape,” confirms the report.

An illegal development must first be made to comply with current policies for it to be sanctioned. If the planning authority’s refusal is overturned by the appeals board, a body outside and independent of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, this could set an ugly precedent.

Shying away from laying down a clear and restrictive policy on mushrooming boathouse en­claves is bad planning by default.

Another boathouse that has come up for sanctioning is a structure hidden in a hollow behind the Riviera Hotel at Marfa. Unauthorised development has been going on there since at least 2008.

In 2012, a Mepa enforcement notice was issued for this site, inland from Ir-Ramla tal-Bir. The breach consisted of a boathouse, a surrounding boundary wall and deposit of concrete, all on agricultural land without a permit.

As verified in a 1967 survey sheet, the existing boathouse is not a replacement of older buildings or structures but is a totally new development.

Approval of this proposal will commit the whole site for future development, extensions, provision of services, possible new access routes and consequential further uptake of land which is ODZ- Planning directorate report on a request for Mepa to sanction an illegal boathouse behind the Riviera Hotel at Marfa

A rural policy approved last year considers the construction of agricultural-related structures and rehabilitation of existing rural buildings, but this boathouse is not justified in the new rural policy.

At the time, the environment protection directorate noted that the development resulted in unjustified urban structures that were objectionable outside the development zone, “resembling a dwelling unit more than a boathouse”, adding that “approval of this proposal will commit the whole site for future development, extensions, provision of services, possible new access routes and consequential further uptake of land which is ODZ”.

Commenting on the application, the Water Services Corporation said there was no main sewer on site, neither is this envisaged in the foreseeable future.

Design-wise it is “shoddy in appearance” and does not fall in one of the categories of development – agricultural, ecological or scenic interest – permitted in rural conservation areas.

An appeal against Mepa’s refusal to sanction is due to be heard by an independent planning tribunal next month.

A lack of policies to deal with areas where boathouses have sprung up, combined with the habit of overturning refused permits on appeal, provides encouragement for anyone wishing to try their hand at building a room in the outside development zone.

Away in a ghost town

With ‘Bethlehem in Għajnsielem’ in its sixth year, the Christmas village in Gozo has become a permanent incursion on the landscape.

Yet the temporary structures named in the planning permission are hardly dismantled from one year to the next.

Rather than a permit application, the plywood village is covered by a simple Development Notification Order (DNO) of the kind meted out strictly for structures that are not supposed to be permanent.

The first notification made by the local council in 2008 was for temporary use of the site, in a field near Għajnsielem’s main church square, for the purpose of a Christmas village over a period of four weeks.

From that point on, despite an enforcement notice, the council never looked back.

The 2011 enforcement notice citing a lack of permits, was dropped after Mepa sanctioned the structures.

What had become a virtual film set has displayed the same symptoms of expansion as any bona fide town or village today.

Yet all along, the same tired old DNO is reincarnated year after year.

A Gozitan drama club doubles up as landlord for the renting out of basic rooms so that aspiring pilgrims may spend the night in Bethlehem, rise early to try their hand at farming or ‘animate’ during the regular opening hours of the nativity village by dressing up in period costume and wandering about sanctimoniously.

The crib characters may avail themselves of the facilities in a ‘temporary’ two-storey hotel, which is “decorated in a manner to take residents back to Judea of 2,000 years ago”.

A water basin and jug, electrically-powered oil lamp, fireplace and cooking facilities in a crude room with double bed and two bunk-beds are at hand to propel fake shepherds directly into the 24-hour nativity play while humming Away in a Manger.

As advertised in the 2010 brochure, rates at this four-room hotel were €20, running to €30 on weekends.

Never put it past a drama group on a small island to seize an economic opportunity of this sort whenever it presents itself.

Every year, the planning authority turns a blind eye to the shabby remnant which resembles a ghost town, haunting the community like a ragged piece of tinsel as it flaps in the breeze throughout spring, summer and autumn.

Once the artificial village is there, would it be more sensible to make year-round use of the area with its carefully crafted rustic features, boat-ride and pastizzi hut? Assuring that all produce sold at the vegetable stall is really local, even organic would be a boost.

As things stand, the whole exercise stands as a manual for questionable operators wishing to build more permanent structures under the guise of a temporary development.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.