Rural ODZ policy would have made Bahrija permit easier for Scerri

New agritourism policy allows ODZ sanction • 'no comparison to Victor Scerri case'

Parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon has rejected suggestions that a new policy facilitating the redevelopment of rural buildings into residential dwellings vindicates former PN president Victor Scerri, whose Bahrija house on an outside development zone was stopped by MEPA after protests by environmentalists and conservationists.

Scerri was on the receiving end of criticism by the Labour party and environmental NGOs and had one of his planning permits in Bahrija revoked by the previous government.

Falzon was answering questions by the media while presenting a new policy regulating ODZ and rural development, but was coy on speaking about Scerri’s case and quick to exclude parallels with the new policy.

“I do not like to speak about people who are not present here. Scerrri is a collegue of mine. But here we are talking about something different. In fact the new policy is aimed at preventing cases like that of Scerri,” he said.
Had the new rules been in place when Victor Scerri applied to redevelop the old derelict building on the land in Bahrija he purchased, he may well have found it easier to demolish it and rebuild it, according to the new rural dwellings policy.

But it would have been difficult for him – although not impossible – to get an extension over and above the footprint of the original building , something Scerri was allowed to do in the permit that was later revoked by MEPA.
This is because the new policy states that in localities enjoying Level 1 or Level 2 protection like Bahrija, extensions will not be allowed “in principle”.

Yet unlike an earlier draft of the policy, which included a blanket ban on such extensions, the approved policy includes a loophole: extensions may be allowed if “it can be duly demonstrated through the necessary assessment, that the development does not compromise the site scheduling characteristics.”
Surely had the new rules been in place, Scerri would have been able to entirely demolish and rebuild the farmhouse without having to resort to a series of piecemeal applications presented by his architect Robert Musumeci, who back then was a Nationalist mayor (and now has moved on to become a paid policy advisor of the new Labour government, on planning).

According to the new policy an  ODZ dwelling can be extended up to a maximum floor space of 200m2 if the property is covered by a development permit or was used a residence before 1992.

Scerri would have also been able to excavate underneath the original building to build a basement.

Under the new policies, limited extensions to dwellings are also allowed in buffer zones to these areas, which enjoy a level 3 protection, as well as on other ODZ parcels that have no particular archaeological or ecological importance.

The policies currently in place do not allow the complete demolition and reconstruction of existing farmhouses in ODZ areas, something that is now being changed. But these dwellings can already be converted to residential uses.

This policy opened up somewhat of a grey area, where MEPA was faced with multiple applications from the same applicant to convert existing buildings with the aim of demolishing as much as possible of it as possible: as happened in the Bahrija development.

ODZ no longer ODZ?

The new policy on ODZ development which permits 400 square metres of agritourism development over 60-tumolo land parcels, does not include safeguards against multiple applications by the same developer on the same site. 

Neither does the policy exempt buffer zones to areas of ecological and archaeological importance.

Answering questions by MaltaToday, MEPA deputy chairperson Elisabeth Ellul – who chaired the committee that drafted the policy – made it clear that multiple applications for developments like boutique wineries, swimming pools, stables, enclosures for animals, horse-riding establishments and visitor attractions may accompany applications for agritourism on such 60-tumolo parcels.

This could mean that developments of over 1,000 square metres may be interspersed in these land areas, raising the spectre that agritourism may well result as a pretext for new countryside resorts.

But the policy also includes significant safeguards, like contractual agreements which forbid owners from changing the use of these buildings.  For example, a stable owner will not be allowed to sell the land to make way for a residence.

Ellul also confirmed that buffer zones, which enjoy level 3, or level 4 protection, can be used for agritourism development.

Although the new policy is aimed to promote rural development and assist farmers, it also makes it easier for owners to redevelop countryside properties.

On his part parliamentary Michael Falzon emphasised the various  safeguards against abuse through contractual obligations on owners who will not be allowed to change an agricultural building to a countryside residence.