PA approves ‘store’ with a view overlooking San Blas Bay

The Planning Authority has approved an ‘agricultural’ store overlooking San Blas Bay and the surrounding Nadur countryside, replacing a roofless structure in a protected area.

Official aerial photographs confirm that the structure was already roofless by 1978, although it had a roof in 1957.

In doing so, the Planning Commission overturned a clear recommendation by the case officer to reject the application due to the site’s sensitive location and protected status.

The development was approved under the 2014 rural policy, which permits the reconstruction of countryside buildings dating back to before 1978, provided the new structure is limited to the original footprint.

This policy, unlike the one governing the erection of new stores, does not require applicants to be in possession of a specific amount of agricultural land—although in this case, the Agricultural Directorate confirmed that the applicant, Nathaniel Grima, is a registered farmer who owns four parcels of land covering 2.2 tumoli (2,541.06sq.m) in Nadur.

According to the rural policy, Grima would only have been entitled to build a brand-new 30sq.m store if he possessed 10 tumoli (11,288sq.m) of land. However, this provision does not apply when an applicant seeks to rebuild an existing structure, such as the one overlooking San Blas, as long as the original footprint is respected.

The project’s architect is Alex Bigeni, one of Gozo’s most prominent architects, known for his work on ODZ applications.

Case officer’s verdict overturned

By approving the development, the Planning Commission ignored the advice of the case officer, who recommended refusal, citing the site’s designation as an Area of Ecological Importance and an Area of High Landscape Value. The officer warned that “such a location would render a large structure visually intrusive on the surrounding landscape.” He also pointed out that no similar commitments exist in the surrounding sloping landscape and cited two comparable applications within 175 metres that had previously been refused.

One of these, for the construction of a completely new store, was rejected in 2022 due to the landscape’s sensitivity, including cliffs and boulder screes.

The case officer also cautioned that approving the development could lead to pressure for further development and have negative impacts on the surroundings. He concluded that the proposal was in breach of various planning policies protecting rural areas.

However, the Planning Commission, chaired by Martin Camilleri, decided to override the negative recommendation, noting that neither the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) nor the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (SCH) had objected. The Commission also pointed out that the project involved reconstructing a pre-1978 agricultural store rather than erecting a completely new building.

The ERA initially objected to the inclusion of a basement and the proposed trimming of an existing boulder, but later issued clearance after these elements were removed from the plans.

The SCH acknowledged that the development was being proposed in a “well-preserved cultural and natural landscape” but did not raise objections