Harking back over 20 years ago when a coalition of five local councils was forged in order to object to the development of a cement batching plant on the outskirts of Siġġiewi, one traces back a track record of environmental advocacy by the same local councils.
Fast forward to today’s context, and, despite the substantial downsizing of the financial clout of the same local councils, one is uplifted to observe that the same streak of advocacy has not fizzled away and that , indeed, that same attitude has not been thwarted by partisan considerations.
The proactive stand adopted by local councils is not solely restricted to their representation on Planning Authority boards on occasions when planning applications within their geographical confines are on the agenda but involves cementing alliances with environmental NGOs and with empowering members of the local community.
Just to mention a few, the Fgura, Rabat (Malta), Siġġiewi, Pembroke, St Julian’s and Swieqi local councils have hogged the limelight in recent months and years for voicing their vehement objections to proposed developments within their constituency.
The cohort of proactive local councils is obviously not restricted to these three only. These three are simply being adopted as case studies in this column and it is refreshingly much broader than this.
The Fgura local council, spurred on by a number of conscientious residents, caused a stir recently by questioning the descheduling of a 400-year-old farmhouse by the Planning Authority within the heart of the locality, which will pave the way for the obviation of one of the last pockets of green within the dense urban clutter that is Fgura.
Gazing at the photo of the site in question that accompanies this column, one cannot but conjure a parody of the concrete behemoth inexorably circling and hemming in the last undeveloped pockets of land, as aptly suggested in the same photo.
A number of clarifications and ironies are de rigeur in this case.
For starters, it is indeed ironic that the applicant requesting the descheduling of the farmhouse is Landscape Properties, as if the cottoning on to a snazzy term – landscaping – can downplay the smothering of the fields adjoining the farmhouse with more residential units.
Secondly, it is tragic that, even since 1995, when the first scheduling became operational, successive administrations did not step in to purchase the site and, thus, secure its conversion into a direly-needed public space.
To the naysayers who point out that such a large within-scheme footprint is worth a fortune, one can recount the many instances where the government actually forked out millions to purchase tracts of land or even built-up properties, presumably in the public interest.
Such a complacent approach over the years has courted the inevitable... that a property-development company has struck a deal with the owners, with the same company managing to nullify the previous scheduling in anticipation of the rest of such a well-trodden path.
My hunch is that some smart guy will probably propose, as a ‘compromise’, the restoration of the farmhouse building- Alan Deidun
Thirdly, the fact that the decrepit and ramshackle farmhouse is currently in an utter state of disrepair, as punctually observed by advocates of its redevelopment when they gloss over it as ‘progress’, is frankly besides the point. What is really at stake is the future of the sizeable plot of land comprising the farmhouse and the adjoining fields.
There have been too many instances when buildings in ruins were exploited in getting plush villas with pools approved in ODZ areas (a loophole that will, hopefully, be plugged within the ongoing ODZ policy revision). The previous owners should actually be prosecuted for allowing a slice of historical heritage to go to rot.
My hunch is that some smart guy will probably propose, as a ‘compromise’, the restoration of the farmhouse building, or the retainment of its façade only, while doing away with the fields adjoining it, in a bid to appease the environmental NGOs and the local community, completely negating the fact that what the locals are after is a breathable space within the clutter they are cooped in on a daily basis.
This requires the preservation of the integral footprint as it stands today, if future plans to convert these into a public space of sorts are to remain feasible.
Restoring the current farmhouse building, or even dismantling it to rebuild elsewhere (as has been the case recently for a farmhouse contemporary to it in Qormi) will also be bandied about as a possible panacea by the proponents of the project, with such an avenue once again being a disservice to the aspirations of the local community.
Fourthly, it is only natural that the applicants behind the descheduling are intent to recover the money they have invested in the property and, if possible, to make some dosh out of it.
However, investing money to purchase a property that is situated within development boundaries does not automatically guarantee approval of permits, especially if the same property comes with strings attached (for example, because it has historical/cultural value, etc).
The argument that “we invested money and it’s not fair that you tree-huggers now want to spoil the party” simply does not rub.
The Rabat local council is objecting to two proposals within the picturesque Wied Għeriexem valley winding between Rabat and Mtarfa in close propinquity to Mdina, which feature the conversion of an existing building, that is shorn of infrastructural services, into a residence that will be complete with pool and also includes the construction of stables.
The Pembroke, Swieqi and St Julian’s local councils have steadfastly opposed the gargantuan city centre development in St George’s Bay, with the last two local councils being constantly vigilant over planning applications within Wied Għomor.
The Siġġiewi local council has tirelessly campaigned against new cement batching plants within its precincts as well as over infringements by quarry owners.