From Mr E. Micallef

The recent disastrous development of Plot 122 at Santa Maria Estate should not be looked at in isolation, nor should the resignation of the deputy chairperson at Mepa be seen as a form of general expiation for all the wrong decisions taken consciously or otherwise by the country’s guardians of our environment. Accountability does not stop at the door of the deputy chairperson.

The same over-development malaise which, as we very well know, has ruined most of our towns and villages with nondescript structures, has also hit Santa Maria Estate, which has become the target of developers as a direct result of the relaxation of planning policies being adopted by Mepa.

Originally, and until this relaxation process, the planning policy for the estate was restricted to one bungalow per plot, one tumolo (1,124sm) in area, with a building site coverage limit of 20 per cent of the whole site. This ensured a combined soft and hard landscaped area of 75 per cent of each plot, with the accent being on the soft landscaped areas. This is what gave the estate its character as a habitable garden environment in the true sense of the word.

In a move that by no stretch of the imagination can be attributed to sound town-

planning practice, site coverage has been increased to 35 per cent, limiting soft landscaping to a miserly 30 per cent of the whole area! As a consequence of these relaxations, developers are targeting existing bungalows with proposals to demolish the

bungalows and replace them with semi-detached units, thus increasing the density. Worse still, this intensification has led developers to introduce underground parking and basements, excavating indiscriminately beyond the building footprint, under both front and side gardens.

The result is obvious. The gardens are being replaced with wholesale paved areas that obviously do not support soil and vegetation. Such practice, though acceptable in urban developments where space is at a premium, has no logical place in villa areas.

However, planning policy provisions whereby excavation under the front gardens of proposed terraced developments is allowed, are being abused and extended to excavation under the side curtilages of bungalow plots on the estate.

Moreover, the result of such irresponsible excavation in a terrain that is very well known for its unstable character due to the clay strata has now become an unfortunate talking point with failing road boundaries as well as giving rise to serious disputes between neighbours.

Mepa’s own Structure Plan Policy BEN 1, which seeks to protect the amenity of existing uses and avoid bad neighbour development, is clearly being flagrantly violated.

The result of this misguided relaxation of planning policies for the area is slowly but surely eroding the character of the estate. It is detrimental to the residents of the estate, with the only beneficiaries being the developers and CENMED which, having no more plots to sell, seeks to extract compensation for any additional habitable units that Mepa approves on each plot.

Such planning permits have even been issued for the construction of semi-detached

villas, each with two habitable floors, which is even in direct conflict with the clauses in the contracts of sale originally drawn up by CENMED when selling the plots! But this is not the end of the story.

Not satisfied with trying to find existing bungalows and plots, developers are also proposing to extend the depth of plots abutting the valley into the protected areas. One such outline application, PA 05301/07, was recently submitted in respect of eight plots, all situated around the bottom of the Ghajn Zejtuna Valley. This is sheer madness!

The residents, various NGOs and the local council have, of course, expressed their vehement opposition to this proposal and are sure to continue to monitor proceedings in this regard.

Considerable damage has already been done and the haemorrhage has to be stopped. Without any further delay, and in order to possibly restore the residents’ trust in its operation, Mepa should take immediate steps to revert back to the previous policies, with better safeguards for the environment as well as neighbours’ property. Such steps should be taken in consultation with the residents’ association.

• The original policy of one habitable unit per plot should once again be introduced for new applications. This should go a long way to stop the unscrupulous targeting by developers mentioned earlier.

• Excavation, where dictated by site conditions should be limited to the building footprint and swimming pool areas; the residual landscaped areas should be worthy of their name, with the accent being on soft landscaping not potted yuccas on paved areas.

• Moreover, sensitive building sites such as Plot 122, that

border the valley and waterway, should be subject to the utmost scrutiny, both at the permit evaluation stage by the Directorate and the Development Control Commission and more so during construction. Mepa imposes bank guarantees on projects in Urban Conservation Areas to ensure the developers’ adherence to the permit conditions. The same should be adopted for the protection of the valley, the waterway and the character of the estate.

This is the only way to make amends and save what can still be saved in the interests of the residents of the estate.

Edward Micallef,

B.Arch, A&CE