Ħondoq appeal case put off as developers fail to present submissions

Published on the Malta Independent on Wednesday, 23rd May, 2012 by Francesca Vella. 

Ten years after the would-be developers of the Ħondoq Bay area submitted their first application for the controversial Qala Creek Project, the case has been put off again as the developers failed to present submissions related to their appeal on time.

Yesterday, the authority’s Planning Appeals Board was scheduled to hear a fresh appeal by the developers, after new plans replacing the proposed yacht marina with a swimming lagoon were turned down.

But the case was put off till 16 October after the developers requested an extension with respect to the presentation of their submissions.

Architect Lino Bianco, the consultant acting on behalf of the Qala local council, said the developers’ deadline to send in their submissions expired about two months ago.

“They asked for the deadline to be extended till 10 June, but the Appeals Board actually extended it till the end of June. We, as objectors, have two months to reply, and the case will then be heard in October.”

Qala deputy mayor Paul Buttigieg, of the Moviment Ħarsien Ħondoq (Ħondoq Protection Movement) said: “The developers had enough time to present their submissions. Why did they fail to send them on time?

“The case, which dates back to 2002, is constantly being delayed. People deserve to know the fate of Ħondoq Bay. I am never going to give up trying to save Ħondoq, because I strongly believe that it should be left for future generations to enjoy.”

In March, a group of NGOs – Moviment Ħarsien Ħondoq, FAA, Ramblers, Nature Trust, Wirt Għawdex, Friends of the Earth Malta, Din l-Art Ħelwa and the Gozo University Group – slammed the latest version of the controversial proposal submitted in that it went far beyond the footprint of the original application to include the footprint of the defunct reverse osmosis, or desalination plant, located on the right-hand side of the bay.

That land, the NGOs said, was public property and the developers have proposed the construction of a public car park in the facility’s stead.

Saying they “feel very strongly about the site being handed over for speculative purposes” in a joint statement, the organisations feel that the developers will, if the land is or has been transferred, gain additional area for the project which falls outside the project’s original footprint.

In another twist to the long-running tale, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat, on a recent visit to Gozo, had pitched the concept of transforming the dilapidated building into new facilities, including an indoor swimming pool.

Dr Muscat said the plan, following consultations with nearby Qala residents, would be to demolish what is effectively quite an eyesore spoiling one of the country’s most picturesque bays, to make way for a new facility, on the same or a smaller footprint, to house an indoor swimming pool and fitness centre, public toilets and changing rooms as well as a restaurant and cafeteria.

“The buildings would be designed and constructed in such a way as to make them harmonise with the natural habitat of the bay. The design would also ensure that the highest environmental standards are met, making use of recycled material, recycled aggregate, recycled concrete, geo-thermal energy and photovoltaic panels for energy,” Dr Muscat said.

The opposing NGOs had said in March that, “Mepa’s Environment Protection Directorate (EPD) took three years to get a non-biased Environmental Impact Assessment of acceptable quality from the developers, until finally a ‘barely certifiable version’ was received. Subsequently, the EPD recommended the project’s refusal in mid-2011.

“Before the Mepa Board could give its final decision on the project, the developers withdrew the original proposal, and suggested a new one in late 2011, replacing the marina with a swimming lagoon, despite the developers’ previous insistence that the marina was essential to the project’s success.

“This proposal went beyond the footprint of the original application, hence Mepa requested that the developers submit a totally new application. The developers appealed against this, and the process is still ongoing.”