Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/789855
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2017 News 6 JAMES DEBONO THE Planning Authority has ap- proved an application to remove bird traps, "to reinstate land for agricultural use" and convert il- legally developed structures pre- viously used by trappers into an agricultural store. The application was presented by Kenneth Abela, a registered farmer and owner of a billboard company, who has also applied to re-open a hotel in the area. Interviewed by MaltaToday last year Abela had justified his inter- ventions in the area as a way to eradicate illegalities on the site. But in a memo sent to the Plan- ning Authority, the Environment and Resources Authority de- nounced that garigue in the area had already been covered by soil. This was confirmed in a site in- spection carried out by ERA on February 2. "It has been observed that dep- osition of soil and site levelling have recently taken place on site to reclaim the garigue despite the status of this application which is still pending decision and no per- mit has yet been issued". ERA has informed the Enforce- ment Section of the Planning Authority for any further inves- tigations that may be necessary and reiterated its objection to the proposal. The case officer had also origi- nally made it clear that the rein- statement of the site for agricul- tural use is not acceptable since the site is karstic landscape and was never used for agricultural purposes. In a previous report ERA noted that over the years, the site has been systematically altered with apparent land scarring as a result of bird trapping activity. This was carried out before Abela took over the land in question and de- cided to stop these activities. But ERA also pointed out that "the present application is seek- ing to reclaim the remaining karstland through further soil deposition" to be used as a lever- age to obtain permission for the sanctioning of the existing struc- tures on site (bird hides) and the construction of new ancillary fa- cilities. The agricultural store which has been legalised was construct- ed before 1988 and consisted of a 30m2 structure. An additional 5m2 was added by 2008. Another 13m2 structure has also been regularised. The case officer argued that the proposed reservoirs, pump room and wind turbine are not accept- able since the site consists of karstland and not agriculture as confirmed by ERA. But during the EPC meeting the applicant provided proof that the land described as karstland by the both the ERA and the Plan- ning Directorate was "registered agricultural land". The development is located within the scheduled coastal cliffs, and is afforded a Level 2 degree of protection as an Area of Ecological Importance. The ERA has warned that approval of this proposal would also set a prec- edent for similar proposals in the area which cumulatively would result in further adverse impacts on the overall natural state of the area and the natural landscape. The ERA had proposed the re- moval of the existing structures "to allow the area to regenerate to its natural state". The Environment and Resourc- es Authority is also objecting to the proposed erection of a 1.8 metre high wall around the der- elict Kalanka hotel also owned by Abela, which is now being proposed for re-development, but the PA has ordered the case officer who opposed the devel- opment to submit conditions for approval. PA tribunal regularises another Dwejra boathouse JAMES DEBONO THE Planning Authority's En- vironment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) has reversed a decision by the Planning board in 2015 not to regularise a boat- house in Dwejra in Gozo. The application to regularise the boathouse was twice refused in 2010 by the Planning Author- ity's highest board, then chaired by Austin Walker. Subsequently the application was assessed in terms of the new rural policy enacted in 2014 but was still refused by the Planning Board chaired by Vince Cassar. In its decision the planning board insisted that "This devel- opment is not suitable for an area of high scenic value and ecologi- cal protection and that "the re- fusal is in the public interest". In its final decision which approved the boathouse, the Appeals tribunal imposed a €2,329.37 fine on the boathouse owner. The tribunal justified regularising the boathouse by arguing that the Dwejra Action Plan approved in November 2005 envisioned the regularisation. It also argued that the PA couldn't refuse permits on the basis of the "public interest". In his appeal boathouse owner Carmelo Sultana pointed out the contradictory decisions taken by previous PA boards with regard to the boathouses in Dwejra. While the Planning Authority approved a batch of boathouses on the eve of the 2008 general election, another batch was re- fused two years later by a differ- ent board. "There is in fact no doubt that this particular refusal is clearly inconsistent when one consid- ers that MEPA has granted some other 40 exactly similar propos- als within the same area. If my client was to abide by this re- fusal, he will have to demolish the boathouse. Ironically the ad- jacent boathouse was approved". The Dwejra boathouse saga 47 of the 68 boathouses in Dwe- jra were built illegally after 1968. In 2005, the Nationalist admin- istration issued an action plan to regularise any illegal boathouse filing for a permit before 2006. Just days before the 2008 elec- tions, MEPA regularised 20 boat- houses in the highly sensitive and protected area, a candidate for UNESCO World Heritage status. But then in 2010 and 2011, un- der the stewardship of chairman Austin Walker, the MEPA board rejected 17 similar applications to sanction those boathouses, which had not been regularised in 2008. During the meeting, Walker underlined that a line had to be drawn on sanctioning illegal structures in outside development zones (ODZ), deciding that refus- ing the applications was in the "public interest and proper plan- ning". The owners appealed to the En- vironment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that the boat- houses be sanctioned according to the 2005 action plan. In March, 2014, one of the EPRT's panels – whose members were appointed by the newly- elected Labour administration – concluded that MEPA could not declare that the proposal runs counter to "public interest and proper planning" without provid- ing supporting arguments. But a month later in April 2014, another EPRT panel – this time, with members appointed by the previous administration – turned down an appeal on one of the re- jected boathouse permits, saying that MEPA cannot sanction any development in designated pro- tected areas. Then came a new policy regu- lating development inside ODZs, and the EPRT once again passed the buck to the MEPA board, re- questing it to decide on whether the 2010-2011 cases of rejected boathouses could be approved under this new policy. In February 2015 the PA board decided that the new rural policy did not apply to these four cases and rejected them for the third time because these were located in an Area of Ecological and Sci- entific Importance. But the PA has not withdrawn the 2005 action plan, which is still invoked to give legitimacy to the boathouses approved in 2008 even if these are in clear breach of other MEPA policies against development in highly protected areas. ERA ignored on Kalanka development