Last week the relatively newly appointed Environment and Planning Review Tribunal overturned a decision by the Planning Authority, a decision in which the latter had turned down an application for a home for the elderly which was being proposed in a prime ODZ site stretching between Gharb and Ghasri in the vicinity of the iconic Ta’ Pinu Basilica.

The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal was introduced in 2016, one of the new bodies set up through the MEPA demerger. The function of this tribunal is primarily to review decisions taken by the Planning Authority and the Environment and Resources Authority, and hence it has a very important, crucial and central role in decision-taking on the type of development allowed and where such development is allowed. Therefore it goes without saying that this Tribunal carries a huge responsibility in the shaping of Malta and Gozo.

I have to admit that I was very surprised when I read that the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal turned down the Planning Authority’s position to refuse the application mentioned above, and I will explain why. It was reported that the Tribunal sent the application back to the Planning Authority for reconsideration on the basis that the policies and guidelines had changed since the application was first submitted. So far so good. However, I was absolutely baffled when I read that one of the policies quoted by the Tribunal was Thematic Objective 2 of the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED). I was even more baffled when I read that this Thematic Objective was interpreted as meaning that it potentially covers and allows such development. Furthermore the Local Plan itself prohibits any development of the sort.

First and foremost, policies must be read in their entirety and interpreted holistically. I believe that Thematic Objective 1 should have been read in conjunction with Thematic Objective 2. Thematic Objective 1 states: “…..manage available potential space and environmental resources…..whilst protecting the environment and limiting land take up within the rural area by (1) guiding the location of the bulk of new jobs and homes within the Urban Area, (4) identifying degrading areas within the Urban Area for integrated regeneration, (7) increasing green open space.” Furthermore Thematic Objective 1 also states that “Socio-economic development should ensure that Rural Areas are not exploited.”

Secondly, Thematic Objective 2 starts off by saying that “the location of new social and community facilities should be within the Urban Area”, and only allows such development in rural areas “where no other feasible alternatives exist”, and “provided that such rural areas are appropriate”. I ask, is the area stretching between Gharb and Ghasri in the vicinity of the iconic Ta’ Pinu Basilica appropriate? I would also like to point out that the term “feasible alternatives” is not to be interpreted as referring to feasible alternatives available to the applicant, but feasible alternatives available to the country. This comes out very clearly in the parliamentary debates held when the SPED was being discussed.

Tomorrow we will be seeing the Tribunal deciding the fate of Wied Ghomor. Wied Ghomor was and still is one of the few, if not the only, open natural space for the Swieqi, San Gwann and nearby localities. Let us not forget that Swieqi, San Gwann and the nearby localities are described as high density residential localities. This fact on its own already merits to be given its due consideration.

But apart from the above, there are also a number of policies and area status that bear directly on development that might be proposed in Wied Ghomor:

 Wied Ghomor was and is still classified as an ODZ area.

 Wied Ghomor was and is still classified as a scheduled heritage area.

 The Local Plan expressly states that “Any development or activity that would jeopardise the protected status or conservation of the valley will not be permitted.”

 MRA Policy ENV 01 establishes that exhausted quarries should be restored to their original conditions.

 Thematic Objective 1 of the SPED dictates that it is imperative to “…..manage available potential space and environmental resources…..whilst protecting the environment and limiting land take up within the rural area” whilst going on to say that “Socio-economic development should ensure that Rural Areas are not exploited.”

 Thematic Objective 2 of the SPED dictates that “the location of new social and community facilities” should be guided “within the Urban Area”, and any consideration in Rural Areas shall only be allowed in “appropriate locations” and “where no other feasible alternatives exist”.

 MEPA Social Facilities and Community Care Topic Paper expressly states that homes for the elderly ideally should be location within village centres or close to them “to ensure full integration of elderly in local communities”.

I have listed the above policy points as food for thought in advance of tomorrow’s hearing.

I am all for promoting and stimulating economic activity. However, I believe that we cannot simply look at immediate short-term gains but one must think in terms of long term success. And this is where planning comes in - proper planning is key. I want to see quality rather than simply quantity. We need to see the Master Plans as soon as possible – professional master plans that provide long-term planning in terms of connecting buildings, open spaces, social aspects, economic growth, nature, heritage, biodiversity, waste management and infrastructure - master plans that address the needs of the entire community, harmonizing them into one vision and also providing a positive effect on the rest of the country.