The Planning Authority on Thursday approved plans to convert a tiny neglected Qala room on ODZ land into a sprawling villa.
The PA overturned a recommendation not to approve the controversial development in a vote taken this morning.
Gozitan construction magnate Joseph Portelli filed an application to turn a 31-square-metre rural room in the countryside surrounding Qala – in an Outside Development Zone – into a large villa and outside space covering 4,000 square metres of agricultural land.
According to Planning Authority policies established, in such situations the applicant would need to provide evidence that the area to be developed was once used as a home.
The applicant provided the authority with the death certificate of an 84-year-old farmer, Grazia Mifsud, who was found dead in the area in 1921. The authority requested, however, that a notarial declaration regarding habitation be submitted.
Despite the objections of the Environment and Resources Authority, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the Qala local council and NGOs declaring that the application was a non-starter, the Planning Authority approved the application.
In reaction, Din l-Art Ħelwa architect Tara Cassar slammed the “unacceptable” desctruction of rural areas through “unsubstantiated” permits that go against the recommendation of all those consulted on the matter, including the Superintendence of Cultural Heriate and ERA.
In a post on Facebook, former Labour leader Alfred Sant said the PA should explain how it reached its decision, one that could reflect badly on the Labour government.
He said the PA must publicly explain, in detail, what led to this “risky” decision when the recommendation it was given was to deny a permit.
The PA must list the reasons, especially considering that, according to reports, the evidence it was provided was “dubious”.
If this explanation is not given and, if it is unconvincing, it is natural that doubts will increase – “including mine” – as to whether the authority is fulfilling its duties properly.
In a statement, the Environment Resources Authority said that in its comments as consultant during the application phase of the project, ERA was very clear in stating that it considers any proposed development and other physical interventions at this site unacceptable in principle.
The permitting of such proposal creates a precedent for further built-up structures within this sensitive area, which cumulatively would result in the uptake of land in the countryside for unacceptable urban uses, with consequential additional impacts on the rural landscape and the visual amenity of the area.
The site of the proposed development is located in a very sensitive rural location. In fact, the site is directly within an Area of High Landscape Sensitivity (AHLS) atop a predominantly undisturbed rural coast. The existing stand-alone building appears to be an old traditional rural structure characterised by traditional features. This structure is an integral part of the character of the surrounding rural landscape.
ERA remains of the opinion that the proposed development will result in over-development of the site. It will also result in land parcelling and fragmentation of land, contributing to significant take-up of extensive tract of undeveloped rural land within the countryside. Other impacts include the introduction of materials that are incompatible with the rural context and scenic qualities of the area. The introduction of light and miscellaneous disturbance on site and in the surrounding area will contribute to the ecological degradation of the wider area.
ERA’s objections were justified and substantiated by Prof Victor Axiak during today’s PA Board meeting.
