Danish Village’s solar farm heading for approval

A proposed solar farm on disturbed land near the Danish Village that will provide almost half of the Mellieha complex’s energy needs is recommended for approval.

Spread over 8,200sq.m of land which originally consisted of garigue will provide 42% of the energy needs of the Mellieha Holiday Complex, popularly known as the Danish Village.

The project is being favourably recommended by the Planning Authority’s Development Management Directorate, but a final decision will be taken by the Planning Board on 16 November.

Both the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage and the authority’s own design advisory panel have objected to the project due to its visual impact particularly when seen

from the bypass and the road to Anchor Bay.

The site is partly also located in a protected Natura 2000 site where the development of solar farms is specifically ruled out by the policy regulating solar farms in the ODZ.

The site originally consisted of pristine garigue but was disturbed by the illegal dumping of construction waste by third parties over decades. A sewage treatment plant on part of the site is no longer in use.

The Mellieha Holiday Complex justified the project on the basis that it will help offset the complex’s carbon footprint, a requirement imposed by its parent company in Denmark. The imposition is a result of new Danish legalisation.

Why not use the roofs?

To minimise the visual impact the PA’s Design Advisory Committee had suggested that the PV panels are placed on the various roofs of the existing buildings while the “disturbed area” is rehabilitated and restored to its original garrigue landscape.

But the Mellieha Holiday Complex rebutted that locating the solar farm on an open field is preferable as this will allow them to use more efficient solar panels optimized for large-scale energy production.

Installing smaller solar panels on the bungalows, they claimed, would represent logistical problems to pass cables down the bungalow limestone facades and trenching long lengths along the pathways to connect the panels to the distribution unit. This would necessitate the closure of parts of the complex for months, the owners said.

The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage objected to the project because of the significant negative impact on the cultural landscape.

But the proponents claimed that by reducing carbon emissions which contribute to global warming they are “indirectly contributing to the preservation of the cultural landscape, particular in the low-lying areas in the immediate vicinity of the project that are highly vulnerable to rising sea levels”.

The project, however, was endorsed by the PA’s Development Management Directorate due to its environmental value.

Although the case officer report acknowledges the typology of the site is not listed as one of the preferred locations for the location of solar farms in current policy, they cited the favourable recommendation by the Environmental Resources Authority (ERA) as a reason to approve the development.