MEPA sanctions illegal accretions to Ghajn Tuffieha barracks

MEPA has regularised an illegal development located within the upper Ghajn Tuffieha military complex, which is being proposed for scheduling as a Grade 2 historical building. 

Both the Planning and the Environment directorates opposed the sanctioning while MEPA’s Agricultural Advisory Committee deemed most of the development proposed for sanctioning as not being necessary for agricultural needs. 

The accretion to the barracks had an enforcement notice against it, dating back to 2007. The sanctioned development includes two stores occupying 40 square metres, a 22 square metre garage and a 40 square metre carport.

Three different applications on the same holding were presented to regularise the illegalities on the site, adjacent to a 200 square metre old building, which serves as a residence. The residence was also a part of the military barracks but its use dates back to the 1960s, before the setting up of a planning regime.

Marika Micallef and Nazzareno and Joseph Dimech who reside at the same address, presented the separate applications. Applications presented in 2002, 2008 and 2010 had already been rejected by MEPA but the permits were reconsidered according to the new rural policy approved by the government in 2015. But despite the changes in policy the Planning Directorate still insisted on refusing the development, especially because not all the illegalities on the site were addressed by the sanctioning.

The Environment Protection Directorate, which opposed the sanctioning, said the site is adjacent to coastal cliffs and surrounded by sensitive habitats.

The Agriculture Advisory Committee also considered one of the stores as not being “genuinely essential to the needs of agriculture” and that it was not even located on arable land. The AAC also noted that the applicant had other buildings on the land, which can be used for this purpose.

The AAC also objected to the regularisation of the illegal garage and carport, considering these as not essential for agriculture. On the other hand the AAC recommended the approval of the other store since the owner did not have other buildings which could be used for this purpose. 

In a memo sent to MEPA in 2013 the Environment Protection Directorate had noted that the development is more “akin to a garage” than to an agricultural store. Moreover it noted that the “store” and a “garage” both proposed for sanctioning, shared a common entrance. The EPD warned that the regularisation of the illegal development would set a precedent for the development of the whole area for similar development, 

In July 2013 the Heritage Advisory Committee had deemed the development incompatible with the historical site. But recently the re-appointed committee, now chaired by Magistrate Dennis Montebello, recommended the approval of the development. The HAC is now saying that it accepts the necessity of agricultural facilities.  

When approving the development of the Hal Far tourist complex upon the recommendation of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the Mepa board had imposed a Planning Gain of €20,000 for the restoration of the Upper Camp.   But when asked for its comments on this application the Superintendence insisted that any decision on regularising illegal development is the sole prerogative of MEPA.