Gozo faces growing threats to both its rural character and traditional townscapes. Visions of eco-Gozo are empty dreams. The reality is turning out to be very different.
Planning applications for the island are in the public eye. One recent controversy was for the extension of the restaurant at Dwejra, another is the proposed demolition of an old village house to make way for a block of 16 flats in Sannat. Developer J. Portelli Projects has already advertised the apartments of this block, to be called Tal-Palazz Residence, on Facebook, although no permit has yet been granted.
Today, another controversial application is set for a decision. This involves a plan to convert a small ruined building in the countryside near Qala into a villa with a pool and landscaped area. This application was first presented for a decision last month and was set to be refused. But the chairman of the Planning Commission, Elizabeth Ellul, was having none of it. She expressed “concern” at the recommendation for refusal by the case officer and deferred the decision to today, thereby signalling willingness to approve it.
Moreover, it has since been reported by The Sunday Times of Malta that the owners, a company involving well-known Gozitan developer Joseph Portelli, paid over the market value for this site, suggesting a certain confidence that a permit could be obtained. The site was bought for €500,000 while real estate experts claim that its actual market price is more like €100,000.
This application highlights two major problems at the Planning Authority. The first is the way that the planning policies are drafted, opening the door to applications like this. The second is the set-up of the Planning Authority. Its boards are perceived to be driven by dubious priorities and undermined by potential conflicts of interest. There are shortcomings in transparency. Some documents on the Qala case, for example, were denied to the public. This sends a negative message and erodes trust.
People feel short-changed and have had enough. One of the demands of civil society’s forthcoming environmental protest, planned for September 7, is radical changes to the rural policy, the fuel stations policy and the high-rise policy. The protest also aims to stress civil society’s view that the planning and environment authorities are run with a blatant lack of transparency, responsibility and independence. People are demanding changes in the composition and selection of these boards, and in the way that they are run.
The Environment and Resources Authority is opposing the Qala permit, but, as seen in other cases, this may not mean much. In the recent Dwejra case, ERA’s views were ignored and it is now lodging a formal appeal. This is a sign of a malfunctioning system and points to a deep flaw in the planning structure. Contrary to what was promised, the revised planning legislation of 2015 did not actually strengthen ERA’s hand in planning decisions at all.
ERA has been reduced to an external consultee, easily ignored by planners, and the vote of the ERA chairman on the Planning Board carries no weight. ERA chairman Victor Axiak has recently received considerable flak for his stance on the Central Link road project. In reality, had he voted against, this would have made little difference to the outcome.
The system is set up for failure on environmental protection.