ERA appeals PA’s decision on development in Wied Ghomor

The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) said it has filed an appeal against a decision taken by the Planning Authority before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) and requested that the approval for permit PA/06443/17 is revoked and cancelled in its entirety.

This permit regards development in Wied Għomor, which would lead to the development of a dilapidated building situated in an ecologically sensitive valley. The proposal includes a farmhouse, complete with a pool, in an Outside Development Zone which is also scheduled as a Zone of Ecological Importance and a site of Scientific Importance.

“ERA believes that the approved permit does not conform to the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development and goes against the Rural Policy and Design Guidance of 2014. When the approved development is compared with what is presently located at the site, it is very clear that the volume of the building in the area will be substantially intensified and this does not respect the context of the valley in which it is located, which serves as a buffer zone in a densely populated area and serves as a green lung,” the authority said in a statement.

“ERA holds that the PA’s decision goes against the North Harbour Local Plan (NHLP), which highlights existing pressures on the environment and identifies the pressures that would be placed on the valley for development. The NHLP calls for a detailed strategy for long-term management of the valley and stipulates that any development or activity that jeopardises the protection of the valley should not be permitted. This development will create a precedent within the zone that currently serves as a buffer, within the narrowest part of the valley between two urban areas. It will introduce the area to urban development, within land that is presently in pristine condition.”

In its appeal, ERA argued that the Planning Commission approved the permit in question without appropriately considering plans, policies, representations and recommendations put forward by ERA, external consultants and NGOs. It is further stated that the way the Commission exercises its discretion is worrying, when decisions are not motivated and contradict the case officer’s recommendations, who would have studied the application holistically. Furthermore, external consultants who are able to share their expertise in their respective areas and non-governmental organisations who are closely connected to the public’s concerns should be paid heed to.