Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/199842
10 Feature maltatoday, SUNDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2013 Is this zero toleranc James Debono FOLLOWING the storm of pro- test against the extension of development zones in 2006 and controversial permits outside development zones, former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi was returned to power pledging a MEPA reform based on the premise that: "ODZ is ODZ" – a zero tolerance towards countryside development. But elected on a vaguely defined but markedly pro-development platform and boosted by a resounding electoral mandate, the newly elected administration is once again tinkering with policies regulating ODZ development. Surely Michael Farrugia, the parliamentary secretary responsible for planning, is right in pointing out that contrary to popular perception, lowkey developments like storage facilities for farmers are already allowed by existing policies approved by previous administrations. This is because agriculture in itself is considered to be human intervention, which requires a number of facilities to make it economically viable. In fact the new policy regulating ODZ development seems motivated by a genuine desire to introduce a dose of entrepreneurship in Maltese agriculture through innovative measures like allowing farmers to sell their produce directly from farm shops. But it also seems bent on changing the goalposts to accommodate land owners who are not necessarily farmers and development which was previously not allowed or severely restricted (at least on paper). In fact, the main difference between old regime regulating countryside de- A myriad of new developments ranging from 400 m2 agritourism projects to animal sanctuaries is set to be permitted on ODZ land, buffer zones for ecologically sensitive areas included. But what impact will this have on the Maltese countryside, JAMES DEBONO asks? velopment and the new policy issued for public consultation by the new Labour government is that a myriad of developments including agritourism facilities will now be allowed in buffer zones for sites of ecological importance. Agritourism or speculation? For the first time since the controversial 2006 extension of building boundaries, the new policy foresees limited residential development in the countryside in the shape of new buildings used for agro-tourism purposes. But while the 2006 extension foresaw massive development on the outskirts of towns and villages, the new policy paves the way for small-scale developments in the heart of the countryside. Instead of restricting agritourism permits to registered farmers, the new policy seems tailor-made to facilitate investment by non-farmers. The new policy effectively enables owners who are not farmers themselves to reap profits from land, which they had bought cheaply in the past due to its ODZ status. In short, land which previously could not be developed has suddenly acquired value. In fact, to benefit from the new policy, the applicant must be either a registered farmer tilling 60 tumoli (67,000 square metres) of contiguous land or an owner who enters in to an agreement with the farmers tilling the land in question. Surely the policy includes a number of safeguards against abuse. As a safeguard against future speculation, the policy proposes a legally binding contract to ensure that the agro-tourism accommodation and the farming enterprise are not transferred separately. Moreover, in the event the landowner is not a registered farmer, the agrotourism project must be subject to a legally binding partnership between the owner and farmers from the locality. The farming activity on the site of the project must also have been in operation for at least five years prior to the application. Another important safeguard against the proliferation of vacant rural buildings is that any building permitted by this policy which is not used for "a period of three consecutive years within 30 years from the date of the issue of the permit" will be demolished. The new policy also limits development to a maximum floor-space of 400 square metres (the size of four average size dwellings), which can be either spread horizontally across the 60 tumoli, or vertically over a number of floors. According to Michael Farrugia the 60 tumoli threshold is aimed at encouraging neighbouring farmers to join forces, possibly as cooperatives. In fact, 60 tumoli land parcels falling under the same ownership – the size of 10 football grounds – are rare to find. Therefore the advantage of setting a 60 tumoli limit is that it will limit the mushrooming of agritourism facilities on smaller land parcels. In this way, new agritourism facilities can only be developed over a very large area. It could also act as an incentive for neighbouring farmers to pool re- Michael Farrugia: "The 60 tumoli threshold for new agritourism development is aimed at encouraging neighbouring farmers to join forces possibly as cooperatives" sources, and this may well serve as an incentive against land fragmentation, a problem which stifles the development of Maltese agriculture. One risk of the new policy is that although limited, the new development can take place in ecologically sensitive areas. Another risk not foreseen by the new policy is that developers may seek to incorporate other facilities like boutique wineries, horse riding establishments and stables, swimming pools, olive oil production, bee keeping facilities, farm shops and other developments permitted in the policy, all located in the same area. Potentially this can easily result in oversized, 1,000 m2 develop- Publication of call for quotations for an assistant for the matrix The Malta Council for Science and Technology is currently carrying out a scoping exercise to identify relevant projects being undertaken, both locally and internationally, within the field of healthy and active ageing. This work has already been initiated with a number of projects having been identified and listed in a database. Information has been gathered through direct contact with The Council's partners and research institutions abroad, as well as through on-line browsing using search engines. The Malta Council for Science & Technology is offering a short-term contract to a motivated researcher or student who would like to participate in this process. The deliverable of the contract will be an excel database that would include all the information relevant to projects in the field of healthy and active ageing that are identified. The work would need to be completed by the 15th December, 2013. The Council expects the work to be undertaken over a four-week period. The selected bidder will be expected to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Comply with the requirements set by a Senior User, a Council executive, who will provide guidance on the necessary functionalities of the database. Hold weekly meetings with the Senior User, who will be following the scoping exercise and assist in shaping the database. Regular correspondence via e-mail and telephone will also be required. Take initiative in reaching out to both local and foreign public and private entities to collect information about ongoing or future projects in the field of healthy living and active ageing. Format the database so that is easy to use and understand, and such that it would allow manipulation of the data Be completely impartial and in no way whatsoever favour any particular entity (whether local or foreign). The Malta Council for Science & Technology is launching a call for quotations for interested parties who would like to offer their services for the development of this database. Quotations of the hourly rate (excluding VAT) should be sent to Dr. Claire Bellia (claire.bellia@gov.mt or 23602125) and Ms. Marie-Claire Tonna (marie-claire.tonna@gov.mt or 2360 2143) by no later than the 8th November, 2013 at 17:00. For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact any one of the two contact points at The Malta Council for Science & Technology. The Malta Council for Science & Technology is the government body responsible for research policy, promoting scientific research, management of the local research funding programme and is the national contact point organisation for the EU Research Framework Programme (FP). Malta Council for Science & Technology Villa Bighi, Kalkara, KKR 1320 – Malta Tel: 2166 0340 Fax: 2166 0341 ments right in the heart of the Maltese countryside. Moreover, applicants may even come up with novel ideas not envisioned by the policy. In these cases, the policy itself gives MEPA board members discretionary powers. Significantly, according to the new policy, such development can even take place on sites accorded a Level 3 grade of protection to serve as buffer zones to sites of scientific and ecological importance. Moreover, while most other developments like stables and swimming pools are also excluded from Class A or Class B areas of archaeological importance or in areas of high landscape value, no such restrictions apply to agritourism facilities. One sensible option could have been that of restricting agritourism to existing rural buildings allowing minor extensions and conversion works. In fact the new rules also permit the redevelopment of existing rural buildings in to agritourism facilities. Swimming zones in buffer zones The construction of new swimming pools is already allowed within the boundary of existing buildings. But while the present policy states clearly that swimming pools cannot result in a loss of fertile, good quality agricultural land or adversely affect valleys, cliff sides or any scheduled property, the new policy simply forbids swimming pools in areas accorded a Class A or Class B level of archeological importance or which are considered as Level 1 or Level 2 areas of ecological importance. The new policy paves the way for the development of swimming pools on buffer zones to Level 1 and Level 2 areas which enjoy level 3 or level 4 protection. The size of pool areas remains restricted to a maximum of 100m2. Rebuilding farmhouses The new policy allows the demolition and reconstruction of rural building which have no vernacular or architectural significance. But in such cases, the policy makes it clear that the replacement building cannot exceed the total floor area of the previous buildings. No redevelopment can take place if the building is considered a "ruin". Although only buildings covered by a permit can be redeveloped, any pre-