Eyebrows should certainly be raised by the recent approval of a permit sactioning an existing second storey addition to a boathouse at Wied iż-Żurrieq, which was waved through despite the fact that the case officer for the planning application (PA 192/16) recommended its refusal.

The case officer rightly pointed out that the proposed extension would create blank party walls on both sides of site, which would be highly visible given the area’s steep topography, and hence would go against North West Local Plan policy NWQD 3, which seeks to limit building heights in order to protect views. The same policy also says there is a presumption against further development, unless it is aimed at upgrading the tourist product or particular communal facilities.

According to the case officer’s report, the permit at Wied iż-Żurrieq quoted by the applicant’s architect did not justify a departure from the policy, so he could not give a positive recommendation for the proposed development.

So it is mind boggling and disheartening indeed that the permit was issued. The permit approval contrasts with the enforcement action taken at Dwejra, Gozo, where contravenors were forced to pull down the second storey of their boathouse.

A mound of rubble with potential

Planning Authority CEO Johann Buttigieg asserted in an interview with MaltaToday a few weeks ago that he believes that it is only fair to allow people to repair and rehabilitate old buildings and ruins in the countryside. The rationale behind this approach is understandable… what is not understandable or acceptable, however, is that one stretches this policy elastically so as to entertain clear abuse.

For instance, how can a pile of rubble be ever used as a pretext for the development of a room in the countryside? A modicum of reason should be applied when putting such a policy into practice so that ruins that are nothing more than an unsightly pile of stone slabs overrun by vegetation are not eligible, while farm buildings that still bear some resemblance to a habitation would qualify for such repairs.

Truth be told, a pile of rubble might indicate the presence of a previous obsolete structure, but if the structure’s footprint has been reclaimed by nature, what is the point of reversing the clock, especially when development has relentlessly claimed so many areas such that previously continuous countryside areas have been parcelled up?

The same policy is fuelling a race for aerial photographs dating back to the 1950s and 1960s in a bid to support cases by applicants that unsightly mounds of rubble were previously used by man, effectively morphing a straw man argument into a legitimate one.

Farmers at the mercy of illegal scrapyards

The recent direct (enforcement) action attempted by the Planning Authority at two scrapyard sites at Tax-Xerriek, limits of Birżebbuġa, located in a larger area scheduled for its archaeological importance, was stopped dead in its tracks by two prohibitory injunctions filed by the contravenor.

At Dwejra, Gozo, contravenors were forced to pull down the second storey of their boathouse

It is worth recalling the protracted timeframe in the run-up to the recent events. The indiscriminate hoarding of scrapped vehicles, tyres and even white goods in the former fields in the two areas in question presumably originated decades ago, way before the Planning Authority was set up in 1992. This, in fact, is the major line of defence the contravenor resorted to when he appealed the enforcement action (ECF 68/96 and ECF 69/96) that the then Malta Environment and Planning Authority embarked upon way back in 2001. The Appeals Board of the day did not approve the appeal.

Fast forward to 2010, and farmers tilling land in the vicinity of the scrap­yard painstakingly documen­ted the ordeal they have to go through due to the scrapyard’s opera­tions, such as not being able to access their fields due to public pathways blocked by objects de­posited by the scrapyard operator.

The same conscientious farmers also repeatedly reported to entities such as the Lands Department, the Birżebbuġa local council and Mepa the damage to rubble walls caused by stacks of vehicles resting against the walls and the possible hazard of waste lubricant oils leaking into the topsoil in the area.

A pile of rubble with potential... such piles are very popular today since, courtesy of a new planning policy and diligent homework by an architect, they provide the land owner with an opportunity to obtain a permit for a new room in an ODZ area.

Against this background, one can only describe as justified the direct action embarked upon by the Planning Authority, with the assistance of the Administrative Law Enforcement, especially in view of PA claims that the contravenor had failed to comply with previous mutual agreements.

One hopes that the operations of the two scrapyards in question are brought under control in the coming weeks, irrespective of the legalistic shenaningans, and that the contravenor regularises his operations once and for all so as to mitigate his scrapyard’s environmental impact. After all, there are already a number of fully-licensed and regulated end-of-life vehicle (ELV) facilities operating on the islands which meet the basic standards that the contravenor currently does not.

Taking advertising to a new extreme

Just when there was a ray of hope that the obtrusive billboards mushrooming around our roads were going to be tackled, someone has proposed another money-making scheme that is set to extend the boundaries of advertising on these islands. The scheme envisages placing floating, inflatable billboards in 45 popular bathing areas.

The areas include beaches such as Selmun, Mġiebaħ, San Blas and Għajn Tuffieħa, which are renown for their expansive sea views and for the feeling of remoteness they afford visitors. Plonking marketing billboards right in the middle of such idyllic spots is certainly not conducive to letting visitors get away from it all, which is exactly the reason why they choose to amble to such backwaters in the first place.

This leads to a second consideration. Describing such billboards as a ‘floating structure’ is actually a misnomer, since they would still need some form of anchoring devices to prevent them drifting away. Placing such devices on the seabed in the bays concerned would impact benthic communities living there, such as sea grasses, which are extremely sensitive to such disturbance.

Mepa had rightly subjected the application for a permit to install an anti-jellyfish net in the Birżebbuġa Bay to a rigorous scrutiny, and gave the applicants guidance to steer away from beaches falling within designated Natura 2000 sites in view of the possible environmental impacts of such nets. The same train of thought should apply to the proposed seaborne fad.

alan.deidun@gmail.com

www.alandeidun.eu