It is not without good reason that policies and rules meant to regulate or control building development are sometimes taken with a pinch of salt. So much damage has been done to the environment over the years and so many attempts are made today to bypass regulations that many see no realistic prospect that the situation can be brought under full control.

Yet, others feel stronger vocal opposition to such abuse can help create greater national awareness of the importance of preserving the little of the untouched natural environment that remains. In other words, all is not yet lost and the organisations in the forefront of the battle for the preservation of the environment deserve the country’s admiration for their efforts.

The Opposition, too, deserves credit for the presentation of a Public Domain Bill, now before Parliament, that is aimed at protecting State-owned property and open sites.

Meanwhile, there have been a number of cases that raised eyebrows and provoked discussion over certain aspects of the new rural policy. This may well have been meant to help farmers and growers in their commercial activities but certain aspects could give rise to loopholes that can lead to development that run counter to what the policymakers might have had in mind.

The latest case is over a permit for the building of a villa in outside development zone apparently filed under the new rural policy. According to reports in this newspaper, the issue of the permit had been “facilitated” by a dubious letter sent in to the planning authority by an applicant describing himself as a vet support assistant.

An investigation into the case was launched and a March 1 deadline was set for the presentation of the findings. The investigation was concluded but the findings have not yet been presented as these are still being evaluated. Hopefully, the matter will now be cleared up without further delay.

However, the matter raises concern as to whether or not the verification measures in place are strong enough to prevent abuse. On the face of it, the rural policy may be considered as being of benefit to bona fide farmers and, therefore, harmless to the environment. But the part of the policy allowing agro-tourism accommodation is raising a great deal of concern as it opens up possibilities of abuse.

This is what the relevant part of the policy says: “Any new development within ODZ areas will only be considered if it is directly related to agriculture, namely dwellings for a dairy or swine farmer, greenhouses and for the creation of new boutique wineries, olive production facilities and agro-tourism accommodation.”

It is pointed out that, while an agro-tourism development will not be recognised as a hotel, the facility must, in order to be considered, not have more than 10 rooms and must have 60 tumoli of land to support it.

There is an even more important caveat, that any proposed development that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the conservation value of any scheduled or protected area of ecological, scientific, landscape, cultural or archaeological value will not be permitted.

Glaringly anomalous, therefore, is an application for an agro-tourism project in a pristine coastal stretch, Munxar. With the protests over planned development at Żonqor still very much in mind, no fewer than 14 organisations are now objecting to the proposed development at Munxar, and they are right, too. Were this to be allowed, it would be yet another blow to the island’s environment.