Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) said it was far from reassured by the response given by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) to its questions relating to developments inside and outside the building zone close to Ta’ Hagrat temples. FAA argues that the developments are a threat to the temples.

FAA asked whether the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage could be expected to adequately monitor all construction sites in each and every case where a permit may have been been granted in a sensitive zone, even despite initial recommendation for refusal, when the resources of this small unit are so tightly stretched.

Mepa’s overturning of its own initial refusal of PA 1272/00 inside the building scheme appears to have improved the likelihood of a second permit application due to be decided shortly (PA 306/06) spilling into the zone designated as outside the building scheme (outside development zone – ODZ).

It is the significant ODZ encroachment of this second permit which poses a clear threat to the archaeologically-sensitive zone outside the building boundary. Approximately two-thirds of the footprint lies on the wrong side of the ODZ boundary as can be seen in the map, FAA said.

FAA considers Mepa’s explanation as misleading. Other than to say that a decision was pending, Mepa’s reply made little reference to PA 306/06, which is the application threatening to further spread urbanisation beyond the boundaries. These development boundaries were supposedly sealed by Parliament’s approval of the Local Plans. The residential apartment block being proposed much too close to the temples presents an immediate threat of further land loss in the outside development zone.

FAA contends that such applications are a waste of taxpayer funds and NGOs’ time, involving them in needless battles to save what remains of the countryside and heritage as Mepa too often swaps this responsibility in favour of helping developers bypass every barrier set up to stop the rape of our heritage. This application should never have been considered, rather than risk a similar overturning of a well-founded refusal as has been the case with PA 1272/00. The many precedents being set both inside and outside the building boundary are leading to the erosion of Mepa’s best-laid intentions.

The Ta’ Hagrat threat ignores planning guidelines as a striking example of how flimsy planning principles have become when developers hold Mepa under siege. Unlike the judicial courts, cases at Mepa can be repeated almost indefinitely through reconsiderations and appeals until finally the outcome swings in favour of development.

Bank guarantees are no obstacle to the determined developer who may decide that the loss of a deposit can be worked into the cost of the new units.

Regrettably, the environmental NGOs which press for long overdue changes in the planning system face criticism and come under attack from the authorities intent on preserving the present system.