MEPA’s magic wand turns pile of rubble into two-storey building

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has approved the “reconstruction” of a two-storey building in the middle of the Zebbug countryside in Gozo… instead of a pile of rubble which is what is left of an older building.

The controversial approval was made possible by a policy included in the rural design guidelines – issued in 2014 – which include a provision allowing MEPA to grant permission for the “the total redevelopment” of any pre-1978 agricultural building as long as the same floor space is retained. 

The draft policy issued for public consultation in 2013 had originally excluded “ruins” from benefitting from this policy, but this provision was removed in the document approved by the government in 2014 – and this is now allowing the merest of derelict structures to be brought back to life.

By approving the new building in the area known as Ta’ Kenga, MEPA’s Environment Planning Commission, chaired by Elisabeth Ellul, ignored the objection made by the environment protection directorate (EPD) and the natural heritage advisory panel (NHAP). Biologist Charles Grech was the only board member to vote against the controversial approval.

The applicant, Nicholas Vella, was represented by architect Alexander Bigeni and proposed the reconstruction of a two-storey structure over a footprint of 25 square metres.

The new building will have a floor space of 50 square metres. The two storeys will be connected through a spiral staircase. It is unclear how the upper floor can be used as an agricultural store.

The site is currently proposed for designation as an Area of Ecological Importance and an Area of High Landscape Value.

The EPD warned that “the ruins” should not be used “as a pretext for a new agricultural room on the site.”

It also expressed its concern on the proliferation of buildings in the countryside and also strongly objected to the height of the project, insisting that a two-storey development is unacceptable. The EPD’s stance was reiterated by the NHAP.

But the case officer report argued that the building could be approved thanks to a policy approved in 2014 which allows the redevelopment of any agricultural building constructed before 1978. Aerial photos dating back to 1978 showed “structural remains” and the two-storey height of the building was deduced “from the shadow of the structure.” Old photos of the structure were also submitted “showing remains of the tall façade of the old agricultural store.”