Ever since the institution of some form of regulation within the planning and development domains, involving the distinction between areas that could be developed and those that had to be preserved for posterity, the Maltese have struggled with observing such demarcations.
Such a large-scale resistance towards complying with this most basic of spatial measures probably stems from the fact that ODZ areas have largely been designated by virtue of their ecological or landscape or open-space character rather than on grounds of private ownership.
A symptom of such a deep-rooted resistance is the perception held by many land owners that such measures are inherently invasive in nature and that any owner should basically be unfettered from land usage prescriptions applying to his own parcel of land, irrespective of whether that same parcel is located right in the middle of Paola or Buskett.
It comes, therefore, as no surprise that illegal excursions into ODZs are so widespread locally, with thousands of open cases pending enforcement and direct action.
The tag line constantly being perpetrated by the Planning Authority is that ODZ infringement is not the snake-headed malfeasance NGOs depict it to be and that, given the right conditions, it can be condoned and tolerated.
This philosophy has been consistently applied across the board, from high-profile applicants such as Joseph Portelli, who has availed himself of notorious ODZ amnesties involving his Qala and Xagħra valley apartment swimming pools within the space of a few weeks last summer, and developer Emmanuel Bonavia, who was granted a sanctioning of massive ODZ illegalities at Bidnija last September against the payment of a meagre €1,200 fine, to Joe Citizen.
The latter can, in fact, soon avail himself of proposed legislation to sanction illegalities extending partly in ODZs through the enhancement of an existing policy introduced in 2016 and which applied to within-scheme areas only. This scheme defeats the very purpose of planning regulation and emboldens prospective future defaulters by providing a convenient loophole they can resort to while conveniently raking in more funds for the Planning Authority to dish out in further greenwashing projects and striking off a substantial number of cases from the burgeoning pending enforcement list.
ODZ abuse comes in many forms and could even be channelled through the guise of, at least at face value, a legitimate planning application, such as those for sheep farms. Recent statistics tabled in parliament reveal how the Planning Authority received a staggering 71 applications for sheep farm developments in Gozo during the last seven years alone, despite NSO statistics indicating that the number of local sheep farms as declared in 2020 decreased by 11 per cent over the previous agricultural census period.
At face value, such an uptick in the interest in the rearing of sheep is a positive development, possibly indicating a revival of interest in animal husbandry.
Such elation, however, is short-lived when one considers that the earmarked sites for such applications (normally ODZ areas lying in unspoilt countryside spots, such as those at Għasri) do not spare a thought for the many abandoned farm holdings peppering the countryside and which could easily house the same animals.
‘ODZ death by a thousand blows’ continues unabated- Alan Deidun
The Rural Policy and Design Guidelines, ushered through in 2014, actually make provisions for residential development in the case of new animal farms and this further explains the sudden interest in such farms.
Here again, there are no signs of a revision in such bravado guidelines, despite this having been first promised over three years ago.
This ‘farming’ shenanigan is being taken to new heights, as the two-storey sheep farm (complete with pool and reception area) given the green light within a valley at Bidnija indicates.
Sports activities are occasionally also adopted as a justification for further encroachment on ODZ areas. For instance, the proposed elderly people residential home at Marsaxlokk, with an adjoining car park, dead in the middle of a valley, is a case in point. To add insult to injury, besides being ODZ in nature, the same land lies in the public domain.
The positive recommendation of this proposed development by the case officer in question is mind-boggling, to put it lightly, given the sealing off of the soil coverage within part of the same valley bed to make way for a veneer of tarmac. Is this the PA’s idea of environmental sustainability, sealing off a valley bed to make space for more parking spaces?
It might be true that the ill-fated scheme rationalisation exercise of 2006 has never been emulated and that development zones have, at least formally, not been extended over the past 15 years.
However, the ‘ODZ death by a thousand blows’ continues unabated, with neither the PL nor the PN in the mood to alienate that swathe of society that roots for a permissive regulatory process and who sing to the ‘Awtorità li Taħdem Għalik’ (an authority that works for you) tune.