The Environment and Resources Authority has said that it has 'no major concerns' from an environmental point of view with a Planning Control application that could pave the way for the development of 13 new buildings on what is undeveloped land in Msida.

A Planning Control application is primarily used if an applicant wants to amend the building or road alignment of a given site or wishes to change the zoning of a site.

The land in question was included in the development zone through the infamous 2006 rationalisation exercise, according to the Planning Authority's own mapserver, bringing the land into the development zone. The Planning Control application in question seeks to establish the zoning, building heights and alignment of roads and buildings for the rationalisation site at Ta' Fuq il-Wied, Swatar, Msida.

The site is on a steep slope, and plans attached with the application indicate that it would allow a building height for 13 residential blocks of 17.5 metres from open space located within the site, and that the majority of potential buildings would not exceed 1.4 metres above Triq Indri Grima (located at the top of the slope).

The Environment and Resources Authority commented on the Planning Control application "without prejudice to ERA's comments on any development application that may be submitted in the future on this site, when more detailed environmental screening may be required. Depending on their nature, scale and context, such development projects may also require different types of environmental assessments or other related screenings including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or Appropriate Assessment. Given that the site is located entirely within Development Zone, there are no major concerns on this proposal from an environmental point of view."

It detailed certain environmental considerations which it said should be implemented by future development projects approved on this site, mentioning, for instance, that new roads and any required infrastructure (e.g. substations, booster stations, sewer connections, pumping stations, waste management areas/facilities, etc.), are to be factored into the advance planning of the scheme.  "Sufficient land should be zoned/allocated for public green space, including proposals for the implementation of suitable soft landscaping. Provision of public green space should be effective and commensurate to the scale, height and configuration of the proposed development in the planning of this site," ERA said, among other things.

The Msida local council has filed concerns over the application, and objected to it.

"The proposal submitted is contrary to the parameters established in the rationalisation exercise. The approved Map 29 has the following note in yellow with reference to the site under consideration: "Low density detached building development to be limited to the lower 50% of the site, the rest being retained as open space. Provision shall be made to include water reservoirs to buffer surface runoff originating at higher ground levels. Comparing this description of the permissible development with that proposed by the applicant means that the proposal under consideration cannot and should not even be considered as it is in direct conflict with it, specifically that development should be limited to the lower 50% of the site. The current plan shows that the proposed building height is 17.5m, which is more than four storeys and does not qualify as low-density development. For this reason alone, the application should be refused."

The council also said that it also "objects to this proposal for reasons that the indicated location is the only area that has remained green, and apart from that, it will be close to where development is underway by Environment Malta related to the afforestation of the area. Therefore, instead of developing more buildings, it would be more ideal to pursue a plan that preserves the environment and takes initiatives for greener development by planting more trees and restoring the rubble walls so that the area will be conserved for the common good of all in the present and, more importantly, for the future."

The council went on to say that the proposal conflicts with various policies.