Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1483500
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 6 NOVEMBER 2022 OPINION 10 Raphael Vassallo OPINION L'Uomo Del Monte ha detto 'No'… ANYONE else notice a peculiar gust of wind – unpredicted by any weather report – that sud- denly swept over the Maltese is- lands last Thursday, at approxi- mately 1:15pm? I'm no meteorology expert, of course; but I'm guessing it was a collective sigh of relief, on the part of tens of thousands of Maltese citizens (myself includ- ed), upon hearing that the PA's appeals tribunal had finally re- jected a proposed 'tourism vil- lage' at Gozo's Ħondoq ir-Rum- mien… thus bringing the entire 20-year saga to an emphatic end. At least, for the foreseeable fu- ture; and only if the developers do not look for (and find) yet another 'loophole', of the kind that might be used to overturn the same decision… for the umpteenth time. Because there's a reason why this entire saga lasted a stagger- ing 20 years, you know. On pa- per, the application to develop Ħondoq into a luxury tourism resort – complete with a yacht marina, multi-storey car parks, administrative buildings, etc., etc.- was actually rejected all the way back in 2016: first by the PA board, and subsequently by the appeals tribunal. Effectively, then, this case should really have come to a close six years ago: not just be- cause the developers had ex- hausted all their procedural av- enues, by that point… but also because – at the risk of repeat- ing last Sunday's article–2016 was also the year when Parlia- ment approved the Public Do- main Act (which, if implement- ed, would have rescheduled Ħondoq Ir-Rummien as an 'un- buildable' zone). Besides: the reasons given by the PA board, when original- ly rejecting the application in 2016, should have been enough to halt the project in its tracks anyway. They included that: > The Ħondoq development was in breach of the Strate- gic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), as it constituted 'a dense urban de- velopment' in a 'coastal rural area' (and was also in breach of the SPED's vision of Gozo as an 'ecological island.') > The Environmental Impact Assessment report had "pre- dicted a number of potential impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed de- velopment, some of which had residual impacts of major sig- nificance. […] These included traffic-related impacts during construction, including noise and emissions and impacts on water quality." > The Environmental Pro- tection Directorate had rec- ommended a flat refusal, on the grounds that (among many other things): "The develop- ment would potentially give rise to significant impacts, and COULD NOT BE CONSID- ERED FURTHER." (my empha- sis) I'll stop there for now, because all the other objections– includ- ing a referendum in which 85% of Qala residents voted against – merely added a little extra weight, to what was already an emphatic indictment of the de- velopers' plans. What the PA actually conclud- ed in 2016, was that the entire project was illegal to begin with. As such, there was only one way the decision could realistically have gone (at least, if you only look at it from a strictly law-en- forcement perspective: some- thing which – alas!–the Plan- ning Board very rarely does, in other cases). And strictly speaking, it shouldn't even have reached any 'final verdict' stage, at all. As the EPD had emphatical- ly stated in its case report: this application should really have been thrown out of the window, right from the very start. And yet, as we all know, the case was not dismissed out of hand (as should have happened at the preliminary stages); and – much more worryingly – it not did even end with the suppos- edly 'final' verdict of the appeals tribunal, either. Naturally, I won't bore you with all the details: suffice it to say that the developers proved (and fair enough, I suppose) every bit as tenacious, and resil- ient, as Qala mayor Paul Butti- gieg had been in opposing their plans. They looked for (and found) certain 'flaws' in the procedural process: specifically, that a sin- gle email, in the entire chain of communication sounding this case, had been sent a few hours after the deadline… and this was enough to send the entire adjudication process back to the drawing board. And this brings me to the first of many reasons, why the na- tional outpouring of relief at Thursday's decision – justified though it undeniably was – may once again be premature. For let's face it: that which has already happened once, can al- ways happen a second time. Es- pecially, given that: a) the original verdict was also greeted, six years ago, by head- lines such as: 'Ħondoq saved, as development project reject- ed by Planning Board' (Gozo News, June 30, 2016); b) architects like Robert Mu- sumeci are already suggesting that the "[The] applicants' re- maining hope is to now detect a breach of law in proceedings or face of record. That way, pro- cess will be reactivated", and; c) nothing has actually changed in Malta's planning legislation, in the meantime, to close any of these loopholes, once and for all… All the same, however: living, as we do, in an age when Plan- ning Authority decisions always seem to go in the clean opposite direction; and when so many other (equally-monstrous, equally-disproportionate) pro- jects are routinely 'greenlight- ed' by the same PA, almost on a weekly basis… there can be no doubt that Thursday's decision really does mark a significant turning-point, in the ongoing struggle against over-develop- ment. If nothing else, it proves that the 'Bureaucratic Behemoth' that Malta's planning sector has become – with all its political intricacies; and all those 'invis- ible hands', forever shifting the goalposts behind the scenes – is not entirely invincible, after all. No, it seems that this monster can indeed be defeated: even by 'lesser mortals' such as Qa- la mayor Paul Buttigieg (and the indefatigable Claire Bonel- lo, who provided all the legal muscle-power); and even if it might, in the end, take over two decades of consistent (self-fi- nanced) commitment, dedica- tion and personal sacrifice. But this, in turn, only raises two additional questions. One: was it really necessary for people like Paul Buttigieg to invest so much of their own time and energy – in his own words: "if I told you how much we had to pay for this consult- ant, or that report; or how much I had to run around Malta and Gozo, out of my own pocket, to attend board meetings, and so on; not to mention all the hours I've put into it, and all the work I've lost… it all adds up to thou- sands." – to combat what was all along an illegal project, which should never even have been considered in the first place?