Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/199842
11 Feature maltatoday, SUNDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2013 ce to development? 1967 buildings "not worthy of retention" can apply for re-conversion. A full basement may also be permitted as long as it is limited to the floor area and no external ramps are constructed. The complete demolition and reconstruction of existing farmhouses is not foreseen by the present policies regulating development in ODZ. This however, opened up something of a grey area, where MEPA was faced with applicants presenting multiple applications to demolish as much as possible of the old building. Presently, for conversion to take place a building "must be in a sound structural condition and be capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding". The rebuilding of large sections of walls is not allowed unless this serves to safeguard the remainder of the building. This ambiguity led to cases like that involving former PN President Victor Scerri, who had to resign after a damning report emerged on the approval of a farmhouse development proposed by his wife. Currently only registered farmers are allowed to demolish and reconstruct rural buildings. This led to cases of developers presenting themselves as "part time farmers". This will no longer be the case as the new law makes it perfectly legitimate to completely rebuild a farmhouse as a dwelling. The new policy also envisages the conversion of existing ODZ rural buildings in to dwellings even if the former use was not residential. The only condition for the existing building to be converted is that it must have a minimum habitable area of 100 m2 and that it already be serviced by the road network. Such buildings may even be changed into more than one dwelling unit, provided that each unit has a minimum habitable area of 150 square meters. Leaving room for interpretation, the document states that any such conversion should not involve "substantial lateral or vertical extensions" or "substantial rebuilding". While the new policy will result in a greater use of presently dilapidated buildings, it could also pave the way for more construction work – including excavations to carve out basements – in the countryside. Only in timber stables The development of new ODZ stables, even those outside the boundary of an existing building, will be facilitated by the new policies. According to the new policy, new stables can be permitted in ODZ areas as long as these are constructed in natural timber: a positive measure ensuring that such development can be reversed if these stables are disused. Presently, new stables are not allowed on any protected area irrespective of the level of protection but the new policy allows stables to be developed on land accorded Level 3 protection. Stables, at this stage, cannot be located on land irrigated by natural sources and should be preferably located on non-agricultural land. Moreover, new stables are only allowed within 300 metres from the development zone boundary. No such restrictions exist in the new policy. The existing policy also bans the erection of any new structures in ODZ areas for horse riding establishments, but allows the conversion of old buildings. No such exclusion is made in the new policy which applies to both stables and horse riding establishments. The new policy also allows the reconstruction of buildings "which are not worthy of retention" in to stables. Although the development cannot exceed the footprint of the previous building, a full basement may be allowed under the stable. The new policy also allows the construction of new stables within the defined boundary of an existing buildings, but these have to be constructed in timber. It also foresees the conversion of existing buildings of architectural, historical and vernacular importance in to stables or horse-riding establishments. The policy states that due to requirements for reasonably wide door openings, it is likely that "only historical buildings designed to accommodate animals will be suitable for conversion". Similarly to the present policy, stables must be located at a distance of not less than 100 metres from the development Why are buffer zones protected? According to the new policy, agritourism establishments and various farm buildings will be allowed on sites currently enjoying Level 3 protection and sometimes even in areas enjoying Level 2 protection. For areas of scientific and ecological importance there are currently four levels of protection – Level 1 is the highest degree of protection whereas Level 4 is the lowest. No development is normally allowed on Level 1 or Level 2 areas while only minimal development is allowed on Level 3 areas. Habitats that are very rare, or areas that support very rare species, would qualify as Level 1 areas. With the exception of the redevelopment of existing rural structures, no development of any sort is foreseen in these areas through the new policy. The restrictions on development depend on the level of protection. For Level 1 and Level 2 areas, the Authority designates a buffer zone with a Level 3 degree of protection. An example of a site enjoying a Level 3 protection as a buffer to a protected area was the site in Mistra, previously where MEPA had controversially approved a disco before the 2008 election. The permit was subsequently withdrawn. Areas like this one will now be available for agritourism development. Buffer zones are considered as an important component of scheduling since any activities on these sites may still have an indirect impact on the Level 1/Level 2 scheduled areas and the overall integrity of the protected features and/or habitats. In fact, the Mistra disco development was recommended for refusal because of its impact on the integrity of an adjacent 'Level 1' area. While small-scale developments are therefore allowed by MEPA in Level 3 and Level 4 areas various policies, including current policies on swimming pools and farm developments exclude any new development on these buffer zones. All this is set to change if the new policy is approved. zone boundary. According to the new rules, animal sanctuaries may also be permitted in ODZ areas, including buffer zones to protected areas. Animal sanctuaries are allowed to build 1.2 metre high structures and even to fence the site. A new lease of life for agriculture? The most innovative aspects of the new plan is the encouragement of rural entrepreneurship by opening new possibilities for farmers, like the opening of farm shops which could enable farmers to sell directly to clients from their own farm. Moreover, the new shops must be built within the boundary of the farm and cannot exceed 15 square metres. These shops will only be allowed to sell local agricultural produce. The new policy also envisions the conversion of farm building to visitor attractions. The theme of these attractions has to be related to agriculture or local crafts. One disadvantage of the new policy is an increase of car traffic in rural areas. In fact visitor centres will also be allowed to accommodate the additional parking needs. On a positive note, the use of grass blocks for parking is being suggested instead of concrete. Similarly to previous policies, the present document foresees the construction of new buildings for olive oil production, bee keeping and honey protection. But this time round, such developments can also take place on sites enjoying a Level 2 or Level 3 grade of protection and are only restricted in Level 1 areas. The new building will have a maximum floor space of 50 m2 and must be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. A basement will also be permitted. The new policy would allow the construction of 200 square metre new wineries, even on sites of ecological importance enjoying a Level 2 or Level 3 protection, where this development is presently not allowed. Only owners of vineyards can apply to build these wineries, and these will have to sign a legally binding contact to tie the ownership of the winery to the vineyard holdings. The new policy also enables farmers to build greater stores. While the current limit is 40m2 for farms greater than 20 tumoli, the new policy allows farmers owning more than 18 tumoli a storage space of 60 square metres. They are also allowed to build a new basement. Moreover, while previously no new stores were allowed on all areas of ecological and scientific importance, according to the new policy only sites with the highest level of protection (Level 1) are safeguarded from this kind of development. Livestock farmers will also be allowed to construct a 250m2 single dwelling within the boundary of an operational livestock farm. Moreover, 100m2 dwellings are also allowed outside the boundary of a livestock farm as long as this is not more than 100 meters away from the farm. Such development can also take place in buffer zones for sites enjoying Level 1 or Level 2 protection. Sanctioning of illegal paths With a stroke of the pen, the new policy legalises "concrete access paths to arable land holdings" built prior to May 2004. Hundreds of such paths in sensitive ecological areas have been created in the past years in the absence of any planning permit. But new paths will have to be constructed through the use of grass blocks or compacted soil. Gates are also permitted as long as these are constructed in timber and do not exceed a height of 1.2 metres. Former Auditor questions arbitrary powers Former MEPA Auditor Joe Falzon, known for his incisive reports on illegal permits issued by MEPA under the previous administration, has mixed feelings on the new document seeking to regulate ODZ development. He welcomes the various provisions contained in the document aimed at avoiding abuse. "In this regard the document is a definite improvement on previous similar documents which I had described as a recipe for abuse". But the proof of the effectiveness of these safeguards lies in the enforcement of its provisions – "irrespective Former MEPA auditor Joe Falzon (on of the political allegiances box containing his views) of the developer". Caption: On power given to government But Falzon raises concerns to over-rule policy: "This reminiscent of on the discretionary powers a monarchy not of a democracy." the new policy gives to both government and the MEPA boards. He describes the new clause exempting the national government from the new rules as symptomatic of a style of government "reminiscent of a monarchy and not of a democracy". The second article of the new policy states "any project of national interest arising from national government policies which departs from the policies formulated in the document shall be assessed on its own merits." According to Falzon, this effectively allows the state to carry out any development, provided it is required in the national interest. Falzon also questioned the introductory paragraph of the new policy, which gives discretionary powers to the Environment Planning Commission and MEPA Board. This paragraph states that the "the spirit of the document" is to "allow" developments proposed by anyone who "genuinely needs to upgrade or redevelop an existing building or to construct a new one outside the development zone". "My experience with the MEPA was that these powers are generally and frequently abused. Unfortunately we live in a small place where everybody knows everybody else, where politicians have excessive powers, which they generally abuse, and as a result members of deciding bodies are always looking behind their backs to ensure that they please the Minister. The experiences of the Mistra case, the Luqa supermarket, the Kirkop supermarket and several other cases are a good indication of what can happen." In all three cases mentioned by Falzon, permits were approved which were clearly against policies. According to Falzon, the document's raison d'etre is "the need to develop" and not the need to "manage the unbuilt environment". "The first and most important criteria should not have been the needs of developers but the need to manage the countryside properly". But Falzon also expresses concern traffic developments like agritourism, visitor attractions and farm shops will bring about. This impact could be even greater in a … "country which believes that the car is a sacred form of transport." Falzon expresses agreement with many of the proposals aimed at promoting rural development if the associated provisions are rigidly enforced. "These can be useful to enhance the use of the countryside and encourage agricultural activities and even tourism." Falzon also expressed strong doubts about the potential of agrotourism in Malta since this is generally a family-oriented enterprise which in Malta would be limited to the winter months – a time when children normally attend school. Falzon fails to understand why the document does not give importance to trekking, which is increasingly popular in Europe. "In other countries country paths and nature trails abound, carefully managed to encourage people to practice this form of activity." He also notes that participants tend to be rather elderly and are not tied down by the dates of school holidays and work shutdowns. "So they are an ideal target for winter tourism locally. While in most of Europe the activity cannot be carried out in winter due to inclement weather, this is not the case in Malta." Falzon believes that taking care of footpaths and improving accessibility to the countryside makes more economic and environmental sense than policies promoting agritourism, which often requires building on pristine land.