MEPA Watch | Sunday, 19 April 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci speaks about the future of the controversial Wied il-Ghasel Permit

Case details
This week I will focus on the controversial Wied il-Ghasel development which featured in the news during the last week. The project proposes the construction of 24 apartments and 26 garages in Wied il-Għasel in the limits of Mosta. According to various media reports, a number of residents made several objections, based on the allegation that the proposed development is located in an area which is classified as a nature reserve within the World Database on Protected Areas managed by the United Nations Environment Programme.
It was also reported that 24 neighbouring residents took an affidavit and declared that the site notice tied to the application was never displayed on site or removed.
Later this week, the case took another twist when a further claim was put forward stating that the architect in charge of the project did not indicate the girna in the existing plans. Hence, it was argued that the Authority should revoke the permit on the basis that such omission constitutes an error on the face of the record which offends the law in terms of Article 39A of the Development Planning Act.

How was the permit approved?
The proposal entails the demolition of a dwelling house, having its frontage onto Constitution street. Due to the configuration of the site, most of the development is located at the back-land, with access through a plot from Constitution Street. The internal development is split up into two main residential blocks abutting third party back yards and overlooks Wied il-Ghasel, which is mainly ODZ area. The DCC was far more than diligent during its proceedings. In fact the Board took note of the objections which stated that that the original plans indicated that part of the construction lied outside the development scheme along one of Malta’s most scenic valleys. Hence, the DCC insisted that the proposed development be reduced to that part situated within the scheme stipulated by the Local Plan for Mosta.

Robert Musumeci’s observations
To start with, one must primarily consider whether the proposed development is located in an area schemed for development or otherwise. In this case, it clearly results that the area where the proposed development lies in an area where according to the Local Plan development may be permitted up to three floors and penthouse. It must be pointed out at this stage that the Structure Plan which was created prior to the Local Plan was a measure urgently required to control development way back in early 1990. However the authorities recognised that a more in-depth study of each particular area was required in order to determine the particular needs of each area, and the best way to address development requirements therein. Those studies took almost sixteen years to complete, but once completed, development could take place according to the standards set out in Local Plans.
It therefore follows that the investor of this site must have assumed that the area in question could be developed up to three floors since the relevant Local Plan was designed precisely to provide clear guidance to this effect. On the same note, Policy and Design Guidelines 2005, Paragraph 3.8, part A sets out guidelines for internal residential developments within areas which are designated for development by Local Plans. In other words, the proposed development in this case is considered to be acceptable, even more so since the penthouse level as originally planned was deleted from the proposal.
The only contention therefore in this case is limited to the alleged presence of a girna within the site, which according to media reports, was not indicated in the existing plans. First and foremost, one must establish whether the said girna lies within the area of development or within the Outside Development Zone area, where in effect no works are contemplated. On the other hand, although such an omission may technically speaking constitute fraud in terms of Article 39A of the Development Planning Act, MEPA may still request applicant to modify the proposal, such that the girna is somehow integrated within the development, rather than order its revocation. In doing so, MEPA would still act according Article 39A of the Development Planning Act, which states that the Authority may, where there are cases of fraud withdraw or modify an approved permit.

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

EDITORIAL


Tilting at wind farms

INTERVIEW