A developer is appealing a Planning Authority’s decision which last February refused a permit for the construction of a terraced house on a plot of land outside the development zone in Żebbuġ, Gozo.

Located within the urban conservation area of Żebbuġ, the site is only accessible through a ramp from Triq taċ-Ċakra and overlooks the idyllic Għasri valley.

An aerial view of the site’s location.

Its location is close to another ODZ plot of land which has also been earmarked for development. In the latter case, a development application was submitted last November for the construction of a four-storey block with a communal swimming pool.

While a decision on the latter is still pending, in the case of the aforementioned site off Triq taċ-Ċakra, the planning watchdog has already turned down the application, but the developer, Joseph Farrugia, has filed an appeal.

Submitted in July 2015 and designed by architect Alexander Bigeni, the application covers a three-bedroom terraced house on two separate levels. The proposed building extends beyond the development boundary and juts in an area earmarked for protection for its high landscape sensitivity and ecological importance in the Gozo and Comino local plan.

Despite its controversial location, the Environment and Resources Authority did not submit any feedback, and consequently this was construed as a ‘no objection’ in line with existing planning regulations.

In his report, the PA’s case officer recommended refusal and also flagged the architect’s failure to address issues regarding the ODZ location of the proposed terraced house.

It will not maintain the visual integrity of the area and so will not comply with the Sped

Apart from the incompatibility with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the surrounding urban conservation area, the case officer noted that the proposed development would not maintain the visual integrity of the area and therefore would not be compliant with the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (Sped).

Moreover, it was not adequately set back from the edge of the ridge, and thirdly, the obligation to construct a water reservoir was not respected.

On the other hand, from a design perspective, the officer expressed a favourable opinion that the terraced house would mask an unsightly parapet wall. For these reasons, on February 14, the Planning Authority turned down the application.

On March 30, however, the developer filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Revision Tribunal, saying that the decision was legally and factually wrong.

In a letter signed by architect and lawyer Robert Musumeci, who is also a government consultant on planning legislation, the developer argued that the design complemented the surroundings.

Dr Musumeci also noted that the ground floor level would be set back and that no large expanses of blank party walls would be created. On the contrary, he quoted the case officer’s remark that an unsightly bank parapet wall would be masked through this development.

Dr Musumeci also pointed out that his client had never objected to constructing a water reservoir, saying it could be easily incorporated in the development.