A war of words on the interpretation of phrases in the Structure Plan and the Gozo and Comino Local Plan has erupted between Environment Minister George Pullicino and promoters of the Ta’ Cenc development.
Despite the minister’s clear pronouncement last year against any new development in Mgarr ix-Xini, the developers are still proposing 38 villas at the picturesque inlet – 20 less than the 58 villas proposed in 2005.
The authors of the Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for the development have questioned the legality of George Pullicino’s pronouncement that the Gozo and Comino Local Plan precludes any new development in this sensitive area.
But Pullicino reiterated his stand against any new development at Mgarr ix-Xini. A spokesperson for the minister yesterday reaffirmed that both the relevant Structure Plan and the Gozo and Comino Local Plan “do not allow any new development at Mgarr ix-Xini near the existing villas.”
The developers claim the proposed villas are close to 10 existing villas constructed in the 1960s. But the local plan approved in August last year states that MEPA should “limit development in the lower part of the plateau (near Mgarr ix-Xini)”. According to Pullicino, this means that development “is to be limited to what is already existing.”
Back in August last year, this ambiguous phrase in the local plan prompted a public outcry, with Din l-Art Helwa claiming it paved the way for the development of new villas in Mgarr ix-Xini.
But in September, Pullicino wrote to the MEPA chairman to make it clear that the Local Plan should not be interpreted “in any way” as allowing new development in the area of Ta’ Cenc overlooking Mgarr ix-Xini.
Pullicino’s clarification was welcomed by environmentalists who regarded it as a major victory in their battle to save Ta’ Cenc from development.
In the EIS, the developers’ consultants claim the local plan simply states that development in this sensitive area “is permissible as long as it is limited”. They go as far as to claim that Pullicino’s declaration last year has no legal weight. “Since the minister’s position constitutes a review of the GCLP, it does not have a legal standing.”
The developer’s consultants say the Development Planning Act states that a local plan cannot be reviewed before a lapse of two years.
But the minister insists no review was effected and that he was simply giving the correct interpretation of the relevant local plan policy after misleading reports in the media.
The developer’s EIS also put the onus on MEPA, going as far as to suggest that MEPA officials had endorsed development at Mgarr ix-Xini when they selected this area as one of the eight management zones of the project – zones designated for heritage or tourism purposes.
The EIS says a letter sent on 8 March 2005 refers to the boundaries agreed upon in August 2003, which included the site overlooking Mgarr ix-Xini, and state that after the MEPA Board was shown the proposals “the indications were that the project was broadly speaking in line with the Structure Plan.”
The draft EIS had also cited behind-closed-doors agreements with MEPA, including a letter the developers sent to the planning director back in 2002 referring to discussions with MEPA in which “understandings were reached” that “tourism development includes the country houses area overlooking Mgarr ix-Xini, a golf course, a heritage park and an additional hotel.”
The developers also claimed in a letter sent in February 2004 that during a “positive and productive meeting” with MEPA officials Stephen Farrugia, Silvio Farrugia and Rachel Portelli, the construction of villas on the lower part of the terrain was deemed “acceptable by MEPA”.
But according to the Structure Plan’s policy TOU 10, development in Ta’ Cenc has to be limited to the vicinity of the present hotel. In contrast, however, developer Victor Borg’s application envisages substantial development down by Mgarr ix-Xini on the opposite end of Ta’ Cenc; a new hotel to the west near Sannat; and villas at Mgarr ix-Xini to the east. All developments are over 2km apart from each other, indicating the sprawl of the development.
Yesterday Minister Pullicino once again made it clear that TOU10 allows for hotel development in the vicinity of the hotel, but “the lower part of the plateau near Mgarr ix-Xini is not in the vicinity of the existing Ta’ Cenc Hotel, and as such the Structure Plan is clear that no development would be permitted in this area.”
The developers are now claiming the words “in the vicinity of the existing Ta’ Cenc Hotel” should not be interpreted that new development in Ta’ Cenc should be located adjacent to the existing hotel.
In a veritable play on words, they say that if legislators harboured such an intention “they would have used terms such as adjacent or immediate vicinity of the hotel.”
They said “the word ‘vicinity’ is on its own subject to a wide range of interpretation” and that “professional planners tend to distinguish between different types of vicinities.”
All is now set for tough linguistic showdown at the MEPA board where board members will be expected to give the correct definition of the word “vicinity”. A quick look at the Oxford Dictionary would suffice to determine that vicinity is derived from the Latin for “neighbours”, which is simply “the area near or surrounding a place.”