When does a swimming zone cease to be a swimming zone? It’s when developers want it for themselves. That’s exactly what’s about to happen to the foreshore below the old McDonald’s at Bugibba.  Beefbar Restaurant, which took over the site, wants to install a 15-metre pontoon whose gantry will cover 600 square metres.

The company behind Beefbar, Testa Catering Concepts Ltd, wants to deprive the public of another part of the foreshore where families enjoy swimming every summer.

Beefbar’s excuse is that this isn’t a swimming zone.  If a swimming zone means somewhere where people swim regularly and have done so for decades then the area is definitely a swimming zone.  Many of the residents of the area and others who move up to Bugibba for the summer months swim there all summer.  The area is so popular that a ladder has been installed there every year to allow swimmers to climb back onto the rocks.

But terms can be twisted to mean many things for Labour and its Planning Authority (PA). You see an area is only a swimming zone if Labour designates it a “swimming zone”.  If it hasn’t it isn’t, especially if some developer or entrepreneur has his eyes on it.  No matter how many people actually swim there, it’s not a swimming zone for Labour.  And therefore it’s up for grabs.

The brave case officer did all he could. He recommended refusal of the permit on multiple grounds.  He noted that issuing Beefbar the permit will create a precedent for similar developments.  He noted that anywhere not officially designated a “swimming zone” could be gobbled up by developers for personal profit, depriving the public of access to more of the coastline.

More importantly the proposal is completely counter to the Northwest local plan which specifically excludes developments that compromise public access to the foreshore.  The Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED) states that any new recreational facilities must not “restrict or interfere with physical and visual public access of the coast”. The area is part of a Special Area of conservation, a Natura 2000 site hosting protected species including Posidonia.

Even Beefbar’s own development statement acknowledged that the pontoon will increase maritime traffic and “could lead to a domino effect for the local commercial activities in the area”.  In short there would be nothing stopping other commercial outlets along the coast from doing the same and robbing more of the foreshore from the public.

But who cares? Labour is business friendly.  It’s on developers’ and business’ side and against the public interest. We’ve seen it at the Fortina hotel. At Balluta. An attempt to snatch Marsascala’s foreshore away from the public was met with such a vociferous public outcry that Labour reluctantly relented.

But the Beefbar decision appears to be a done deal.  Instead of heeding the wise words of the valiant case officer, the PA’s planning commission chaired by Martin Camilleri asked him to “assess the latest information to clarify whether reasons for refusal have been addressed”. The PA’s Martin Camilleri wants the case officer to go away and come back with a different decision.

How could the reasons for refusal be “addressed”? The public will still be denied access to the area.  They certainly won’t be able to swim there with motorboats bringing in clients to Beefbar.  They certainly won’t be able to swim safely anywhere near the area.  The Northwest local plan hasn’t changed.  It still prohibits developments taking up public access to the foreshore.  SPED is still there and it still doesn’t allow facilities that restrict physical and visual public access to the coast.

The PA’s planning commission postponed its decision for now.  It asked the developer to present documentation showing that the area is not a “swimming zone”.  Why is the PA asking the developer when the case officer has already stated that the area is used by swimmers?  The developer has a vested interest in getting his permit approved.  And those interests conflict with public interests.

The PA’s decision has been postponed to 20 September giving time for “more detailed information” and correspondence from government entities to determine “whether the site forms part of a designated swimming zone”.

But the writing is on the wall. The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA)  was outraged at the proposal.  It objected vehemently to it.  ERA pointed out that the proposed development would take up part of the coast which is “still relatively open and pristine”.  It would create “pressures for further development and an undesirable precedent for future proposals in other sensitive areas”.

Yet all of a sudden ERA had a complete change of heart. ERA issued its clearance for the proposal to proceed. What changed? Who pulled the strings? How come ERA is now claiming that the project is of a “minor scale”?  Bizarrely contradicting its own earlier arguments ERA now claims that “the environmental impact will not be significant”.

Beefbar’s architect, Edwin Mintoff, chimed in.  The proposed interventions, he claimed, are reversible. And besides they have a low visual impact.  Nobody will notice. It’s just a 600-metre squared gantry and a 15-metre long pontoon which will berth motor boats.

The proposed development will rob many who enjoyed that spot of their right to access the foreshore.  It will deprive them of their right to enjoy the area they have swum in, some of them for decades. It will prevent them swimming in the surrounding areas because of the increased maritime traffic and the associated pollution with engine oil and leaking fuel.

Beefbar has already destroyed the peace with its constant loud music throughout the summer months. “Beefbar is more than just meat… resident DJs will hit the decks, providing the perfect backdrop to your lunch”, a promotional article announced. Beefbar has kept its word.  It has already ruined the area with its ear-splitting thumping music. Now it intends to rob that piece of coastline from us completely. And the PA will surely oblige.