ERA clears Buskett old people's home after bird safeguards imposed

The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) has dropped its earlier objections to the proposed old people's home on the site of the abandoned Buskett Forest Aparthotel, concluding that the project is unlikely to significantly affect the nearby Natura 2000 site if a series of environmental safeguards are implemented.

In a fresh assessment submitted to the Planning Authority, ERA said it had "no objection" to the development from an environmental point of view, marking a significant shift from its position earlier this year when it called for further studies before a decision could be taken.

The proposal, submitted by Peter Borg, involves the demolition of the derelict Buskett Forest Aparthotel in Dingli and the construction of a three-storey, 54-room old people's home accommodating around 100 residents.

The project had been heading for approval in November, with the Planning Authority's Development and Management Directorate recommending approval despite ERA's earlier concerns. However, the case was postponed following a review of the case officer's report and a request for additional environmental assessments.

In February, ERA insisted that although the development would not occupy new land, its proximity to the protected Buskett woodland warranted a full Appropriate Assessment. The Natura 2000 site, formally known as L-Inħawi tal-Buskett u tal-Girgenti, is designated both as a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area and provides important habitats for bird species, including migratory raptors.

The Appropriate Assessment has now concluded that the project will not compromise the integrity of the protected site or undermine its conservation objectives.

ERA noted that while Buskett is best known for its woodland, the protected area also encompasses the valleys of Wied l-Isqof, Wied il-Luq and Wied il-Girgenti, with agricultural land accounting for around 61% of the site. Management objectives include protecting important habitats, preventing overuse and disturbance, and safeguarding feeding grounds used by bats and bird species.

The authority nevertheless imposed a number of conditions aimed at reducing disturbance to wildlife.

Demolition works are to avoid the breeding season of terrestrial birds between February and August to prevent the destruction of active nests. The noisiest construction activities should also be avoided during September and October, when migratory birds pass through the area.

Proper hoarding must be installed to contain dust, materials and equipment within the site boundaries, reducing noise and preventing spillages into the surrounding countryside.

ERA also raised concerns over the impact of the completed development on birds using the adjacent rural area for nesting, roosting and foraging.

To reduce disorientation of migratory birds and seabird fledglings, all external lighting must use warm-coloured, downward-facing fixtures designed to prevent light spilling beyond the site or upwards into the night sky.

The authority also flagged the risk posed by the building's extensive glazed surfaces. Large windows can cause fatal bird collisions, particularly during migration periods. Revised plans now include bird-safe films incorporating fixed markings such as dots or stripes placed no more than five centimetres apart to make the glass visible to birds.

ERA also reviewed additional information requested earlier this year, including updated traffic studies and photomontages illustrating the visual impact of the development.

The traffic data indicated that the old people's home is unlikely to generate a significant increase in noise from vehicle movements, while the proposed landscaping, including the planting of indigenous trees, was considered adequate to soften the building's visual prominence and provide additional foraging and roosting opportunities for wildlife.

The authority acknowledged that retaining the abandoned aparthotel would avoid construction impacts but noted that allowing the derelict site to deteriorate further was also undesirable, particularly given the presence of invasive alien species. It also observed that the current proposal had already been downscaled from earlier versions and that no feasible alternative sites had been identified.

ERA concluded that, subject to the incorporation of the recommended conditions into any permit issued by the Planning Authority, the project is not expected to significantly affect the surrounding environment or the integrity of the protected Natura 2000 site.

The final decision will nonetheless rest with the Planning Authority's board. However, ERA's endorsement removes one of the major obstacles facing the proposal and makes approval of the development more likely when the application returns for determination.