A few weeks ago, the three-member Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT), a mouthful of a name for an appeals board, finally granted planning permission for the development of a one-storey residence in an Outside Development Zone that straddles the area between Żebbuġ and Siġġiewi.
The decision is repugnant for a number of legitimate reasons.
Firstly, the same site had been the subject of at least three previous rebuttals, in 2010, 2011 and 2015, albeit for developments of a considerably larger footprint. All rebuttals were justified on the grounds that the development would run counter to a large number of planning policies.
Secondly, the site is currently endowed with an illegal poultry farm, which was basically one of the thousands of enforcement cases cooling their heels indefinitely as no direct action was ever taken to rectify the illegality.
Thirdly, no guarantees are in place against any further expansion of the approved development, such that the applicant might still get his swimming pool as an annex in future years once the dust on this odious approval has settled.
Fourthly, one has to contend with the premise that the EPRT used to overturn the previous rebuttals. Basically it latched on to the ‘planning gain’ nature of the approved permit, as the new residence would replace a poultry farm that is having an ‘adverse visual impact’.
If the EPRT was so concerned about the visual impact of the illegal poultry farm, why did none of the members, who are planning practitioners in one way or another, call for it to be demolished through direct action? It takes some warped logic to only see a ‘planning gain’ in replacing an existing obtrusive illegality with some form of development rather than fully reinstating the site through the simple clearance of the same illegality. It is indeed brazenly cheeky to label the approval of an ODZ residence as a ‘planning gain’ simply because no one had the gumption to demolish an illegal poultry farm!
Could it be that enforcement authorities knowingly drag their feet when it comes to adopting direct action simply because the illegality concerned could fall within the sight of an applicant ready to capitalise on such an opportunity?
And fifth, the site is fully ODZ, although one has to wonder whether this designation cuts any ice anymore these days.
It is indeed brazenly cheeky to label the approval of an ODZ residence as a ‘planning gain’ simply because no one had the gumption to demolish an illegal poultry farm!
Online commentators took exception to the fact that the applicant in question was the CEO of the Gasan Group and that the permit granted was possibly the outcome of his trading in influence. I see very little merit in this line of reasoning, primarily because the same yardstick should be applied to all law-abiding citizens of this country, with the nature of the permit being loathsome whether the applicant was Mr Gasan, Mr Deidun or Mr Bloggs.
Additionally, I have my doubts as to whether this planning decision would have made the headlines had the applicant not been of such a high calibre.
Back to the 90s
Twenty-five years ago, in 1992, vast swathes of low-lying, accessible shoreline in St Julian’s slipped from the public to the private domain at the stroke of a pen so as to galvanise the prodigious growth of the national tourism sector and paved the way for hotel development in this prime site. The land was granted on a ‘temporary’ emphyteusis of 125 years.
The pill (the loss of this considerable stretch of public land) was sugared by lofty claims that the envisaged touristic development was in the national interest. Now it seems that even those claims to the moral high ground have been jettisoned, with a parliamentary resolution being presented to obtain MPs’ approval for a mixed type of shoreline development in the area, with residential interspersed with touristic development.
What is being proposed is sobering indeed – our elected MPs are being asked to become complicit in the further privatisation of the public shoreline – against a combined financial compensation and one-time premium of nearly €70 million in return for waivering the restriction on the nature of the permissible development.
If Parliament does indeed decide early next year to grant such a waiver, then it would have de facto ensured that the granting of 70,000 square metres of public shoreline way back in 1992 was done on false pretences, given that the ‘national interest’ will no longer be served.
Under threat: Populations of the Noble Pen Shell, one of the most iconic endemic species of the Mediterranean, are declining fast, even in Maltese waters.The disappearing Noble Pen Shell
One of the most iconic endemic marine species of the Mediterranean is the Nobel Pen Shell or Fan Mussel (nakkra in Maltese), a bivalve which can reach a total height of 120cm. Given its vulnerability to impacts from ship anchors as well as its endemic status, it has been given conservation priority by various pieces of environmental legislation.
This, however, has not saved it from a spectacular recent crash of its populations in Maltese waters and across most of the western Mediterranean, ever since the first record of a parasite infection of the species in the Balearic Islands in 2016.
As a result of the infection, it has been recorded that up to 99 per cent of Noble Pen Shell populations have died in various locations including Spain, Corsica, northern Sicily and Malta.
Infected mollusc individuals are reported to be starving to death due to the parasitic blockage of the digestive glands, as well as losing the ability to close their shells.
In recent surveys conducted in Maltese waters, a massive regression of the species was observed, with many populations having been obliterated.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature has issued a stark warning regarding the phenomenon (see www.iucn.org). Some form of prompt intervention is needed to halt the decline of this giant marine icon of the Mediterranean.
alan.deidun@gmail.com