The Environment and Resources Authority has raised serious concerns about a planning application which would construct agri-tourism accommodation and a swimming pool at Bingemma, Mgarr, Malta, arguing that the development will result in the commitment of a large tract of undeveloped rural land.
The total site area in question, according to the application form, is 6,510 sqm, and the main existing use of the site is listed as being for agriculture.
Whilst the ERA notes that the proposal lies within a Category 2 Settlement located outside the development zone, the “ERA is concerned that the proposal will have adverse impacts on the site and surrounding rural environment. In particular, ERA is concerned that the proposed development would result in: the commitment of a large tract of approx.3400sqm of undeveloped rural land; the proliferation of physical development in the countryside; a significant site formalization through the introduction of hard landscaping etc.
The ERA argued that this, and similar developments contribute to the degradation of the landscape and visual amenity of the area. Cumulatively, these would lead to the significant overall change in the appearance of the surroundings and the rural setting.
The ERA highlights that the nature of the proposal, “which mainly includes a guesthouse with ancillary services such as restaurant, lounge, kids play area, etc. within the main building and also separate outdoor recreational areas including a swimming pool, gazebos, outdoor cooking area and so on, will introduce a new type of commitment on site. Such interventions are more akin to urban-type development which is not favourable ODZ.”
The ERA said that there are further concerns, that once the proposed agro-tourism project is established, there would be pressure for further ancillary interventions, such as future extensions, additional outbuildings, physical modifications for the upgrading of the existing site access, etc., resulting in a more formal setting and further uptake of land.
“ERA also has reservations about such proposals which eventually tend to develop into ODZ commitments and which would be more liable for a change of use which is not related to agricultural practices.”
The Agricultural Advisory Committee noted, according to the planning application documents, that the applicants are genuine active arable farmers jointly tilling over 60 tumoli of land, noting however, that the agricultural land is not consolidated. They noted that the farming activity of both applicants has been in operation for five years prior to the application. It also notes that “from the business plan, it is noted that the agro-tourism project will be ancillary and complementary to the farming activity.”
The Agricultural Advisory Committee noted however, that the “applicants are genuine active farmers who are already involved in diversification. However, since they are not tilling 60 tumoli of contiguous/consolidated land, the proposal does not comply with the requirement of the policy, hence cannot recommend the proposal.”
The application is still in the screening process.