Ownership of coastline not a planning issue – MEPA

“Ownership is not a planning issue.”

This was the reply of a Malta Environment and Planning Authority spokesperson when asked about the planning vacuum created by the removal of specific Structure Plan policies enacted to ensure that the Maltese coastline remains in public ownership.

Prior to the approval of the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) in July, specific planning policies were in place to ensure that the coastline remains under public ownership and that all illegal structures like illegal boathouses are removed as stipulated by the Structure Plan.

When asked which policies presently protect public access of the coastline, a MEPA spokesperson replied that Coastal Objectives CO1 and CO3, included in the new Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development “require public access and use to the coast”. 

Coastal Objective CO1 states that “public access and use” must be prioritised alongside the protection of biodiversity and cultural heritage. 

The policy objective refers to the need to secure “visual access from promenades and enhance public use of bathing areas” should also be secured. As regards the rural coastline it states the planning authority should “encourage public access” for informal recreation while also “improve small scale beach facilities”.

Coastal Objective C03 facilitates “the provision of new recreational facilities which do not restrict or interfered with physical and visual access of the coast”. 

These policies would facilitate the setting up of platforms on rocky beaches and jetties by the private sector as long as the beach remains “accessible” to the general public. As things stood before the approval of SPED, case officers could still invoke CZM3 against any private coastal development set on the coastline.

These vague objectives sharply contrast with far stricter and wide-ranging policies included in the Structure Plan.

Policy CZM 3 made it clear that, “Public access around the coastline immediately adjacent to the sea or at the top of cliffs will be secured. This will include taking shore-lands into public ownership, government acquisition of illegal developments and encroachment.” 

Moreover, according to the Structure Plan, “all the coastline will be brought into public ownership within a specified period”. Policy REC 12 also called for the demolition of all illegal stone built structures on the Maltese coast. 

The Structure Plan warned that if these structures “are allowed to remain, evicted shanty users (in other localities) would ask why they are being proceeded against and not the others, and most importantly it would be seen as another case of benefit accruing to those who break the law at the expense of those who do not, and a signal that it is worth attempting further illegal development because of the government’s reluctance to enforce the law.” 

These policies were never implemented in full, but were strategically invoked by case officers when faced by applications which denied public access to the coast. CZM 3 was regularly invoked to turn down any application limiting access to the coastline or to regularise illegal developments on the coastline.   

One recent case where the policy was specifically invoked was with regards to an application by the Ta’ Cenc hotel owners to set up a timber gate to control access to the Kantra beach. The planning directorate had argued that CZM 3 applied to any structure located on both private and public land hindering access to the coastline. It also argued that no development should prejudice the structure plan commitment to bring back all coastal land in public ownership. An appeal on this application is currently being heard by the Environment and Planning review tribunal.

Various applications for beach concessions – including one in Ferro Bay – were also turned down because of CZM3. Policy REC 12 practically made it impossible for MEPA to approve any sanctioning of illegal boathouses in Marsaskala and Armier.