The Mepa board is due to decide today on a change of policy regarding a site at Mellieha, known as Ta’ Masrija, which was the case of many protests in the past.

This policy is seeking the regeneration of a large site with an area of around 25,000m2 located on the southern perimeter of the main urban settlement of Mellieha, facing dramatic views of undulating landscape to the south. Currently, the site lies derelict and is a scar on both the urban and rural environment.

It has three predominant characteristics – a large disused, hard stone quarry to the west, another disused older quarry to the east and a rock outcrop separating the two. The larger quarry ceased operations around 1996. Significant changes in levels in excess of 20m, and its exposed position would make any development of the site highly visible from long distance views.

When the first proposals were made, some years ago, there was a huge outcry and opposition articulated by MPs Evarist Bartolo and Michael Farrugia as well as the then local council.

In January 2006, MEPA published the approved Planning Policy for Ta’ Masrija, Mellieha. This document contained a planning policy to guide the future development of the area. The policy required the submission of a comprehensive scheme for each of the allocated land parcels and a utilities plan for the whole site, by not later than two years from the publishing of the policy.

The policy made provision for the submission of piecemeal planning and development of the indicated sites subject to the submission of a comprehensive utilities plan. The policy also included a provision that should the land owners fail to submit to MEPA a valid application for the comprehensive planning within the stipulated time frame would result in MEPA adopting an alternative scheme within the policy framework set out by the same policy.

In 2006, MEPA approved the Planning Policy for Ta’ Masrija. The Policy had divided the area in 5 different sites; A, B, C, C1 and D in accordance with the land ownership. The policy included an indicative layout. The only binding road was that fronting site C1, which site was also excluded from the requirement of the comprehensive utilities plan. The land uses proposed were as follows:

 · 76,000m2 of gross residential floor space and 3,270m2 of public amenity and play space distributed proportionally between sites A, B, C and D.

 · A neighbourhood centre with: 750m2 of gross retail floor space subdivided into at least 11 separate retail outlets and one outlet is food and drink of up to 250m2 floor space; 200m2 gross office floor space subdivided into at least 2 separate units; the gross food and drink floor space does not exceed 75m2; and a day nursery/kindergarten facility for around 30 children;

· Underground communal car parks, to accommodate a minimum of one car per dwelling and a visitor’s car park accommodating not less than 25 cars,

· Public amenity and play space not less than 3,270m2.

During the same year and 2007, MEPA received a comprehensive utilities plan and another three applications for the planning and development of the three main sites within the boundary of the policy. However, the process failed to produce an agreement between the various site owners on the utilities plan and thus the whole process was stalled. In 2014, the failure to reach an agreement on a comprehensive plan has lead Government to instruct MEPA to start the process for the revision of the Planning Policy for Ta` Masrija.

 The published objectives for the revisions are:

 · The adaptation of a master-plan by MEPA for the site indicating the road alignments, land uses and building heights within the framework of the 2006 policy;

 · To eliminate the need for comprehensive planning by the land owners providing development follows MEPA master-plan;

 · To prohibit the adaptation of the FAR for the site.

Four of the submissions received were from the three major land owners of the area, who individually submitted their proposals for their respective sites. The owners welcomed the elimination of the need for a comprehensive master plan. Three submissions were received from private individuals and another submission was received from the Mellieha local council.

These submissions welcomed the prohibition of the adoption of the floor area ratio and proposed that the building height should reflect the height limitation of the areas surrounding the site.

Another issue that was identified was the limiting of commercial uses so that these uses do not attract patrons from other localities to this area and that no part of the site should be indicated for industrial development.