On 16 December last year, the Mepa board had turned down an application regarding the development of 13 residential units along the lower part of the watercourse at Għajn Żejtuna, in Santa Marija Estate, following a very robust and stormy meeting.

The applicant came back with a drastically reduced proposal, decreasing the proposed residential units from 13 to seven and reducing the density by no less than 46%.

The applicant also extended two buffer zones and created two more buffer zones to further limit the development of the site. He also committed himself to accepting all that the Structure Plan, the Local Plan and other policies applicable when the application was submitted.

Even so, however, this curtailing of the proposed development did not satisfy objectors who came back with renewed force to object that the curtailing was not enough.

At the end, though, the Mepa board voted eight against one to accept the reconsidered application.

The site is composed of two banana-like sections of land with the Għajn Żejtuna watercourse winding its way between them. The watercourse has been declared a scheduled site for ecological reasons.

The reasons Mepa gave for its December 2010 refusal were: “The site is located along a watercourse scheduled as a Level 2 Area of Ecological Importance. The proposed development is counter to Structure Plan policy RCO 15 which prohibits developments in urban and other built up areas which are insensitive to the continued existence of identified features of scientific importance and significant elements of the country’s natural heritage present within the area. It is also counter to Structure Plan policies RCO 28 and RCO 29 which seek to protect valleys and prohibit development incompatible with such areas.”

Before that refusal, this application was subject to numerous representations from Mellieħa residents, environmental NGOs, the Mellieħa Local Council as well as through articles in the press.

The main issues raised in individual representations are similar in nature and are being summarised as follows:

a) the submitted drawing fails to provide sufficient information to clarify what sort of development is being proposed

b) the site is located Outside Development Zone,

c) most of the site is designated as a water course with high ecological value,

d) the site is safeguarded and protected by North West Local Plan Policy,

e) the development would affect the existing water course,

f) the water course drains rain water run off from a large catchment area

g) the site is home to indigenous flora and fauna,

h) development within valleys runs counter to Structure Plan policies RCO 28 and RCO 29,

i) it is possible that excavation works within the valley bed will intercept subsurface water flow which will in turn affect the natural springs located downstream in the valley,

j) the area forms part of the Mellieħa Perched Ground water Body and is thus subject to Legal Notice 194 of 2004 which transposes the EC Water Framework Directive,

k) only low density single dwellings on individual plots as per Policies should be allowed to retain the low density environment of Santa Maria Estate,

l) an Environmental Impact Assessment should be submitted.

Following the application’s refusal by MEPA Board and the subsequent request for reconsideration, further representations were submitted. The representations’ main issues are summarised as follows:

a) the ‘modest’ increase in the set-back buffer zone and the reduction in density is acknowledged;

b) the fresh drawings do not indicate any reduction in the overall footprint area;

c) swimming pools are still proposed in the buffer zone running counter to the definition of Developable Site Area as set out in the DC2007 glossary;

d) the revised drawings do not address the application’s shortcomings and continue to run counter to Structure Plan Policies 15, 28 and 29;

e) site should be subject to a new application compliant with all current policies and with conditions stated on the outset not deferred until a method statement is required;

f) issues to be considered include:

· retaining the existing terrain:

· maximum of two storeys with one habitable level and without terracing;

· roof levels not exceeding street level;

· roof gardens;

· indigenous vegetation;

· minimum surface excavation.

The Directorate noted that after removing the scheduled areas from the site, and the areas where no development can be made and the areas around the swimming pools, there is still ample space for bungalows since only 30% of the area will be developed. So the open character of the area has been preserved.

But Sammy Vella from the Għaqda Residenti Santa Marija Estate said that his association does not consider the reconsideration application as being acceptable. The applicant has said he is reducing the 13 proposed residential units to 7 but there is nothing in the application to substantiate this. The members of the association are not convinced the applicant will abide by the Mepa policies.

Mr Vella further charged that the scheduling of the watercourse was tampered with to satisfy developers as otherwise the plots would not be developable.

The entire area is composed of Blue Clay and any tampering with it affects the hydrology of the entire area as it will all be disturbed.

This is one of the few fresh water streams left in Malta and chlorine from the swimming pools can seep through to the watercourse. One has also to factor in the dangers of excavating and constructing the swimming pools in such a delicate area: this cannot be done by laser.

Marc Bonello, the architect, said the applicant is ready to abide by a condition limiting the development to 30% of the area.

Board member Philip Manduca asked if the other developments along the watercourse abide by the Mepa policies.

Mr Bonello replied that the site next door goes down to the watercourse as do other sites on each side of the site. These however were there before the 2009 scheduling.

Mr Vella added that his organisation had been vociferous in appealing to Mepa to address the many infringements in the area. But the fact that some development in the area infringes the Mepa policies should not lead to the justification of further infringements.

Mepa deputy chairman, Franco Montesin, asked whether the area is being considered as one site or rather seven sites. He was told that if the site is split into seven sites, their development can take far longer. Mr Bonello confirmed the plan was to develop the entire site at one go.

A board member asked how can the construction of the swimming pools be done without harm to the watercourse. Mepa chairman Austin Walker replied there are methods to ensure this – look at Venice he said. To which the board member retorted that Venice is built on piles but the swimming pools at Għajn Żejtuna cannot be built on piles.

Mr Vella added that there is over-development in the valley. Two years ago Mepa was urged to monitor one particular development which was wreaking havoc on the watercourse further up. The development was stopped by Mepa but two years later nothing has been done to redress the harm that has been done. On the contrary, the area is now a riot of non-indigenous trees such as acacias. The association is very apprehensive about this part of the valley.

Following the approval of the reconsideration, two conditions were inserted: that on each plot no more than one bungalow may be built and that monitoring must be done to avoid any damage to the fragile ecology.