The Bishop of Gozo, Mgr Mario Grech, raised a number of eyebrows with this year’s traditional homily on the occasion of the feast of the Assumption of Our Lady.
Concluding a sermon on the inherent dangers of moral relativism, His Grace turned his attention to the threat posed by speculative development to the island of Gozo.
“I assure you that the Church will be at the forefront in defending the environmental heritage of the country. However, I note that while permits for building hotels are issued, permits for cemeteries, retreat houses and improving the access to churches are not forthcoming.”
At face value, one is tempted to sympathise with the Gozo bishop’s frustration regarding the environmental degradation that so often arises from injudicious sanctioning of controversial development projects. There can be little doubt that certain permits issued for tourism development have been facilitated precisely because they are related to one of Malta’s largest industries. One need only look at the approval of the Ulysses Lodge redevelopment project in Ramla l-Hamra, where a previous refusal for the development of residential units was overturned, on the grounds that the revised application was for tourism purposes.
But while Bishop Mario Grech may be justified in his environmental concerns, his insinuation that MEPA somehow discriminated against the Gozo Curia calls for some clarification. In particular, on the subject of different weights and measures, where the Gozo Curia’s arguments suddenly appear at best fallacious.
It is true that the Church in Gozo has a number of permit applications currently pending before MEPA, and that not all have trodden the primrose path to instant approval. But there is a very valid reason why some of these applications may take time to be processed. All the Church’s proposed development projects lie entirely outside the development zones, and some – notably PA 5484/03, for a car park adjacent to the Citadel bastions in Victoria – also entail serious environmental and heritage management considerations.
And yet, despite the Gozo bishop’s public remonstrations, it appears that MEPA has dealt with these cases with a generosity it seldom reserves for other, less influential applicants.
For instance: in two cases where the Gozo Curia applied to develop cemeteries – one to build a new one in Nadur, and the other to extend the existing cemetery in Xaghra – a development permit was eventually granted, despite original recommendations for refusal by the case officers concerned.
Elsewhere, MEPA appears to have treated the Church’s applications no differently from those of any other individual or institution. One example is the case of the Ta’ Pinu National Shrine – a rather large project, which envisages a tunnel, visitors’ centre, retreat homes, a library and parking bays for coaches and private cars… all outside the development zone. In this case the application was filed in June this year, but the application fee was only submitted in July: just one month ago. The Ta’ Pinu application is currently before the Environment Protection Department, a fact which suggests that it is actively being considered by the relevant authorities concerned. It is worth remembering that other, more modest applications – sometimes submitted years earlier – are still pending to this day. So it is hard to understand why the Church feels aggrieved that the permit has not already been granted, despite the fact that it was only filed a few weeks ago.
Bishop Grech concluded his homily with an appeal to uphold the law: “Despite this, I always insist with the Parish Priests to comply with the laws of the land and to follow the directives of the competent institutions.” And yet, it seems that the Church in Gozo somehow expects preferential treatment for its own development projects, despite the fact that all four of the cases referred to above – the two cemeteries, the Ta’ Pinu shrine and the Citadella car park – are themselves legally questionable.
Evidently, we are dealing with a situation where the Gozo Curia can see the mote in MEPA’s eye, but appears totally oblivious to the beam in its own development applications.