MaltaToday previous editions

9 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 25 JUNE 2014 Few public projects are so univer- sally associated with failure and disappointment as the derelict White Rocks holiday complex, in the limits of Bahar ic-Caghaq. Plans to redevelop this prime location go back to the early 1990s, yet none has ever got off the ground. The latest of such attempts to rehabilitate this area – currently a derelict blot in an otherwise stun- ning location – was a proposal by the previous government to develop a sports complex, coupled with 300 real estate units. The agreement with British inves- tors (who were chosen in the ab- sence of any tender) fell through for reasons which were never revealed. In fact the entire proposal, includ- ing the method of selection of bid- der, had shown a near total disdain for the norms of transparency. From this perspective it is under- standable that the present govern- ment would want to deliver where all previous administrations have so far failed. But that in itself is no jus- tification for repeating some of the same mistakes made by previous governments: not least, reneging on a previous decision, taken in 1999, to preclude real estate development as part of the overall brief. That was a wise decision, es- pecially when taking into con- sideration that a large swathe of residential property remains vacant to this day. Yet the government has once again opted for a project entirely based on tourism and real estate development. As a result, the country will no longer gain any direct benefit for the community in the form of sports facilities, but only more residential units. While one welcomes the fact that a call for expressions of interest has been issued this time round, one cannot but express concern about the fact that the project will simply create a greater glut of property, which may also place additional pressure on the perception of a property price bubble about to burst. Moreover there are also environ- mental issues at stake. Any develop- ment must respect the Habitats Directive of the EU, and the exist- ing built-up area at White Rocks is adjacent to an EU-Commission approved Special Area of Conserva- tion (SAC). European law man- dates that the only development permissible in SACs is that which is necessary for the management of the site itself. The Habitats Directive further restricts activities on sites adjacent to SACs, in the sense that these are to serve as a buffer zone and should not cause indirect damage to the SACs. If the above parameters are adhered to, it is not at all clear which residential facilities can be developed except on the already developed site. This would leave unanswered questions as to where the 300 projected residential units, clearly intended as payment for services rendered by the developing consortium, are to be built. Furthermore, any call for ex- pressions of interest today is still obliged to follow existing planning policies regulating development of this site. In fact a Development Brief for the White Rocks site already exists, having been issued by the then Planning Authority in 1995 when an "upmarket tour- ism project" was proposed. The development parameters drawn up then are still of extreme relevance to today's discussion. The site identified in the 1995 brief consisted of 36.9 hectares. Strangely, however, the site identi- fied by the present government is now even larger (45 hectares)… with the extension not covered by any existing planning approval. The 1995 brief also subdivided the area into three zones: Zone 1, having an area of 38% of the total, consists of the existing holiday complex and its facilities. Zone 2 (39%) consists of a mixed garigue and rocky coastline, including the marine environment and archaeological resources. Zone 3 (23%) consists of agricultural land. Only Zone 1 was to be released for development. The brief identified one exception: an underground structure in Zone 2 which was to be rehabilitated… in respect of which no extension of its footprint was to be considered. A second document of relevance to the White Rocks site is the North Harbour Local Plan, approved in August 2006. This document makes no reference to development at White Rocks: the area is in fact designated as a "green wedge". The implications are clear: no develop- ment should take place on this site at all. This indicates that both the sports/real estate proposal of the Gonzi administration and the present real estate proposal are in breach of local plans. Given the extent of the technical expertise and sound planning that went into both these documents, it is simply absurd to ignore an approved PA development brief and also the North Harbour Plan, in favour of a new development for which no brief has been issued (still less one that gives due weight to all the above considerations. Even from a strictly legal point of view, the government is obliged to limit any new development to the zone identified in the original plans. In view of the commercial sensi- tivity of the decision, it is perhaps understandable that the govern- ment would green light some form of development: but the resulting project should follow one simple rule: All development should be limited to the existing built-up ar- ea. Anything more would overstep approved planning policies, and open the floodgates to uncontrolled and environmentally unsound development in future. Editorial White Rocks, or white elephant? MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt

• Cover