PA board deadlocked on whether to sanction Żebbuġ bird park
The Planning Authority (PA) is deadlocked over a proposal to sanction a bird park in Żebbuġ, with five members in favour and five against.
The site under consideration is located outside the development zone at Ta’ l-Andar off, Triq Ta’ Għar Ram, Żebbuġ. Plans indicate that the site lies in very close proximity to the development zones of Żebbuġ and Qormi.
The proposal was “to sanction conversion of an existing building to form part of a visitors attraction to bird park, including sanctioning of pool, toilets, manure clamp, canopy, animal enclosures and passageways.” The proposal, according to the case officer’s report, included enclosures for owls, fallow deer/kangaroo, graw/cawl and crush as well as parrots, verenali, storks/palette and falcons, among others.
The case officer noted, in his report, that this application sought to sanction illegal development, mainly the conversion of agricultural land into a site for keeping animals, including the construction of cages/structures related to this activity and other permanent structures constructed in masonry stone, including a large timber structure indicated as a lecture hall. As described in the Project Description Statement (PDS), the site is divided into four main parts, namely an olive grove, bird rearing/husbandry area for educational and recreational activities, and undeveloped fields that could be included in any future expansion.
On the extent of the illegalities, the report says: “Comments by the enforcement officers indicate that the premises were being used for catering activities, and that the lecture hall and a number of cages have been constructed in breach of the enforcement notice.”
Din l-Art Ħelwa (DLĦ) objected, stating that most of the works had been carried out before obtaining a permit and that it was against sanctioning within ODZ areas. Nature Trust Malta requested information on the animals planned for this area, and said that any protected species should not be allowed to be displayed to the public.
The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) noted that the proposal was of significant environmental concern and thus considered it objectionable.
The Veterinary Regulations Directorate said that it had no objection to the development of the existing farm as a premises for animal collection, since the site was large enough to handle a certain number of animals, depending on the species being kept. “This endorsement is on condition that the developer does not introduce additional animals prior to obtaining written permission from the VRD.”
The Planning Directorate recommended that the application be refused, arguing that it ran counter to the Rural Policy & Design Guidance (RPDG) 2014 in that the site lay within 200 metres from the development zone. The proposal also includes the sanctioning of a significant amount of structures that are not lightweight and visually permeable, hence in conflict with policy. The directorate also argues that the proposal runs counter to SPED. In addition, the sanctioning of the swimming pool runs counter to policy.
With regarding to the swimming pool on site, the applicant’s architect argued that there was an agreement with Puttinu Cares to make use of it.
The case officer’s report reads that “an official statement issued by Puttinu Cares was presented, stating that the applicant has shown great generosity by organising several activities with proceedings going to Puttinu Cares, including educational trips for schools and catering activities. In the latter stages of the process, an agreement between Puttinu Cares and the applicant was also presented, whereby it is stating that Puttinu Cares patients can make use of the facilities at this bird park (including swimming pool) for rehabilitation purposes for free (subject to conditions).” The case officer’s report notes that if the project is approved, prior to any exhibition of animals to the public, the site should be licensed as a zoo.
ERA chairman Victor Asciak mentioned commercial activity on site, telling the applicant: “I have nothing against areas, even on ODZ, being used for therapeutic services, and I have no doubt they are being used as such, but let’s do things right.” he also noted that the restaurant on site was not listed for sanctioning.
PA chairman Vince Cassar expressed concern over the proximity of this bird park to the development zone, given relevant policies require a 200-metre buffer zone.
The Planning Authority Board saw five board members intending to overturn the Planning Directorate’s recommendation for refusal, with the other five showing their intention to stick to the recommendation, and thus a final vote will be taken during another sitting.