Qrendi: Permit granted after three refusals

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has issued a permit for the demolition and reconstruction of a partly collapsed “agricultural store” to an applicant who had the same application refused three times before on a site with a long history of planning infringements.

In fact a fine for an enforcement carried out by MEPA in 2010 when “truckloads” of construction waste were removed from the site was still unpaid when MEPA issued the permit last week.

The latest permit specifies that the bill has to be paid before works can start on site.

Il-Hofra ta’ Wied Behir in Qrendi is an area designated for its high landscape value and forms part of a buffer zone to an Area of Ecological Importance. The site, which overlooks Ghar Lapsi, has some of the most attractive panoramic views in Malta.

The permit was found acceptable because it involved the reconstruction of a 45 square metre store built before 1978 over the same footprint. An additional basement is also being included.  

The case officer argued that this was permissible according to the new policy governing ODZ development.

This was the fourth attempt by owner Mark Formosa to regularise the development.

The permit had been turned down twice in the past by the Environment Planning Commission first in 2010 and then in 2011, and the latest decision was confirmed by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal following an appeal by Formosa.

MEPA had also objected to regularise an illegally constructed reservoir because the applicant was not a registered farmer. 

In representations submitted to the appeals tribunal the lawyer representing MEPA noted that the rubble walls on the site were built in breach of the law as these were built using limestone and concrete. The reconstruction of the room was deemed unacceptable in a “scheduled site” and because the applicant was not a registered farmer. MEPA had also denounced the illegal uprooting of a carob tree while the owner claimed it was only pruned.

In its decision the Appeals tribunal confirmed that material from outside the site had been used to change the topography of the site. It also upheld the argument that no development could be regularised on the site and proposed a compromise through which the developer would accept to remove all illegalities on site, reinstate the site levels and then rebuild the two rooms and regularise the reservoirs. The tribunal also insisted that if ever rebuilt the store had to be used exclusively for agricultural use.

The EPD notes that works carried out on site and the proposed development are of “significant environmental concern”. The directorate claimed that aerial photos showed that the site “has been radically transformed” and have been more extensive than those permitted in previous permits. 

The works included extensive changes to site levels, unnecessary removal of soil and uprooting of trees and the construction of non-traditional rubble walls. But the developer replied that these works had been approved in a permit issued in 2001, which included a permit for the replanting of some trees which had been removed. 

Moreover an illegal room subject to an enforcement action had now been removed.