For some, refusing to take ‘no’ for an answer can be very rewarding, even if the entity telling you ‘no’ is the Planning Authority.

In 2009, the owner of a tract of land on the outskirts of Kalkara filed two separate planning applications requesting the development of two terraced houses over land falling outside the development zone. The land where the terraced houses were proposed formed part of the quaint hamlet of Santu Rokku, the last rural settlement found around the Grand Harbour.

The project went against every applicable plan and policy for the area.

The local plans describe the hamlet as a Rural Conservation Area, considering it to be a ‘relatively unspoilt traditional agricultural’ community. Due to its unspoilt nature and active agricultural industry, the underlining aim of the local plan policies was to ensure that the hamlet’srural character was retained.

The only developments that could be considered had to be limited to what was essential for the existing farming community, either through improvements of existing properties or new structures necessary to support the needs of agriculture, the ecology or contribute to the areas scenic value.

Two new terraced houses built over virgin land did not qualify as necessary development that could be considered under the local plan.

There were other restrictions.

The land being proposed for development formed part of an area which was legally scheduled and protected as an Area of Ecological Importance and Site of Scientific Importance forming part of ‘Wied ta’ Rinella’.  Urbanizing this land through the construction of two new terraced houses would go directly against efforts made to preserve this scheduled site of ecological value and could not be deemed compatible with its protection status.

There was a further restriction – a mature carob tree with a canopy that extended across half the site, which tree was itself protected.

In February 2010, given the proposals’ clear conflicting position with applicable policies, the Planning Authority rightly refused both applications.

The applicant, dissatisfied with the Planning Authority’s decision, requested a reconsideration of the applications. In November 2010, the Authority came back with the same conclusions and dismissed both requests.

Despite the previous refusal, in 2012 another application was filed on the same tract of land again for the development of two new terraced houses.

The local plans governing the site, as well as the protection status of the area, remained unchanged. The application was still against those policies.

The application could not even be considered under the Rural Policy and Design Guidance that was amended in 2014 (a rather lax document that opened the flood gates for much of the barrage of new construction we are seeing in rural areas across Malta and Gozo today).

After a lengthy processing, in 2015 the Planning Authority once again refused the request.

In 2016, at which point most would have counted their loses and moved on, the same applicant who’d applied in 2012, filed another planning application over the same tract of land, this time requesting not two new terraced houses, but four, each equipped with a swimming pool.

The policies for the area remained unchanged.

The Environment and Resources Authority objected

The Agriculture Advisory Committee objected.

The residents of the area objected (although some were bizarrely in favour of the development seeing it as a solution to a rat problem – how constructing 4 new buildings and introducing sewage and waste of 4 new households which houses would still be surrounded by agricultural land, could be deemed the solution beggar’s belief).

If two terraced houses were regarded to go against the preservation of the open and rural character of the area and be counter to the planning policies aimed at supporting the agricultural community of the hamlet, of course four new terraced houses should be in a sense at least twice as objectionable.

Well, apparently such logic is not applicable to planning. In May 2017, the Planning Commission approved the four new terraced houses.

When most would have thought it impossible, the owner of this land ploughed through, unruffled by the restrictions imposed by planning policies and the protection status of the land. And how much did that obstinance pay off? Just over two years have passed from when the Planning Authority dished out the prized permit and today one of the four terraced houses (akin to a villa) is on the market for over €1,060,000.

Tara Cassar is an architect focusing on planning policies and environmental issues related to land-use, active with a number of local eNGOs.

[email protected]