Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1483500
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 6 NOVEMBER 2022 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt Hondoq is safe from development; Last Thursday's decision on Hondoq ir-Rummien marks the end of a saga that has been on- going for 20 years; and in which FAA was a frontline campaigner. How significant do you see this victory, in the wider context of the 'war for the environment' as a whole? It is definitely a significant victo- ry, to us. This was, in fact, one of the first campaigns we ever took up, when FAA was established in 2006; so obviously, it means a lot to us. We still feel very commit- ted to it, to this day. However, I have to say that it is disappointing that this victo- ry should have taken 20 years to achieve: ever since Qala mayor Paul Buttigieg first started bat- tling it, from the moment the original application was submit- ted. Here, I have to give him the full credit he deserves: Paul sac- rificed his whole life, for the past 20 years, to the cause of saving Hondoq… for the people of Qala; the rest of Gozo; and for Maltese and tourists, alike. But it's a huge disgrace, to both governments, that this procedure should have taken so long; and that there is still, to this day, an ongoing attitude – as recently voiced by Infrastructure Minister Aaron Farrugia – that: 'If NGOs are not pleased with a PA deci- sion, they can always file an ap- peal'. Excuse me, but: why should NGOs, and the public, spend so much of their own their lives, and their own money – because there are massive financial re- quirements involved – to appeal against all the wrong decisions taken by the Planning Authority: which, in turn, supposedly exists to regulate the planning sector, according to interests of the Mal- tese public… and NOT the inter- ests of developers? Sadly, this attitude still persists to this day... On the subject of why it took so long: the original application was rejected in 2016, on the grounds that it contradicted the country's Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED). Moreover, in 2016 Par- liament also approved the Pub- lic Domain Act – including FAA's proposal to designate Hondoq ir-Rummien as 'undevelopable' – though it was never enacted, in practice. Doesn't this mean that the entire saga should re- ally have ended six years ago: when the project was deemed 'illegal', by the PA Board? Yes, it should have ended there; and at one time, in around 2010, a Nationalist MP – I believe it was Mario de Marco – had also proposed that [words to the ef- fect of]: 'if applications are pri- ma facie in violation of planning policy, they would not proceed'… giving the developer the oppor- tunity to appeal against this de- cision. We feel that this would have been a very fair outcome, all things considered; also, because no one ever takes into account the huge amount of public funds that are wasted [in processing such applications]. It's not just the NGOs and res- idents, who end up wasting their own resources on endless ap- peals; but the Maltese taxpayer also spends a huge amount on the payrolls of all those Planning Authority employees, who are caught up in processing these cases, for years on end. There's also that to be considered… Coming back to Thursday's vic- tory: how 'final' is this decision, anyway? I'm not sure if you're aware, but Robert Musumeci has just posted that: "[The] ap- plicants' remaining hope is to now detect a breach of law in proceedings or face of record. That way, process will be reac- tivated…" What I can tell you is this: yes, I did notice [Musumeci's] cheap, ambulance-chaser words. He is quoting an Article 80 procedure; even if, as far as we know, Article 80 can only be invoked to repeal a permit that has already been granted… and NOT to overturn a refusal. Unfortunately, however, the re- ality is that anything can change, or be 'twisted', in our current planning set-up. And besides: there's always the possibility of a whole new application being submitted by the developers. This is why we maintain that Hondoq ir-Rummien will never be safe, until it is declared Public Domain, once and for all. Another thing that emerges from the case-history is that – while the Hondoq project appeared to enjoy political support, back in 2006 (evidenced by the secret- ly-changed Local Plans, which permitted 'maritime and tour- ism' development in the area) it seems to have lost that backing, in recent years. The Nationalist Party now endorses calls for a national park at Hondoq; and the Prime Minister voiced his own opposition to the project, in his Budget speech. How much of a bearing do you think all this had, on the final decision? Look: we've never been under any illusion, that such cases are not decided by the political hand – or hands – that control the Planning Authority. Going back to 2006: we had been approached by planners, who told us to our faces that the Local Plans they were in the process of drafting, had left their office for 'the min- ister's approval'… only to come back totally unrecognisable. They couldn't even recognise their own work, as the people who drew up the 2006 Local Plans. So much of it had been chopped, and changed, by the minister of the day, that none of their original proposals remained Environmental NGOs such as Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) are palpably relieved by the final rejection of a 20-year-old application to build a tourism village in Gozo's pristine Ħondoq ir-Rummien valley. But as campaigner ASTRID VELLA warns: the real battle to save our environment is far from over PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY