Appendix

DRAFT GOZO AND COMINO LOCAL PLAN
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
SUBMISSIONS BY BICC
Prepared by
K. Morris
Perit G. Vella
For
Planning Services Consultancy
September 2002
DRAFT GOZO AND COMINO LOCAL PLAN:
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
SUBMISSIONS BY BICC
INTRODUCTION
1. The Gozo and Comino Local Plan, like its predecessors, is a well-structured and
coherent document covering a wide range of issues, which has been improved by the
adoption of many of BICC’s suggestions on previous plans.
Response: Comment appreciated.

2. The overall approach of the Plan is to
• To ensure that enough land is available for the envisaged spatial development
requirements up to the year 2012 and beyond.
• To continue to safeguard and enhance the unique cultural and natural

characteristics that render Gozo and Comino so desirable to inhabit and visit
• To encourage development that:
o Creates wealth and opportunities

o Improves the quality of life and the environment
o Is compatible with planning policy
o Is compatible with surrounding activities
o Is efficient on land use
o Does not constitute over-development
o Does not overload the highway network and parking capacities
o Does not detract or endanger cultural or natural heritage
o Does not release contaminants into the surroundings
3. BICC’s submissions in respect of the Plan are from the perspective of the role and
mandate of the Council: To provide a forum in which the problems and issues related to
the building construction industry are discussed. Policies and issues not directly related
to the building construction industry are not addressed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Implementation
4. The plan generally has two types of policy, one type controls development, the other
identifies projects that need to be undertaken for the good of the community. In
some cases the Plan indicates the responsibility for carrying out the policy; it relies on
third parties to bring the plan to fruition. There are no indications of when the
project is needed or who will pay for it.
Public Consultation on the Draft Gozo and Comino Local Plan: Comments by BICC September 2002
Response: In common with preceding planning documents, this is an

enabling plan, which implies that responsibility, timeframes, management
and budgets are determined outside this plan. The main role of the plan is
to safeguard appropriately sited and sized land for identified uses. This role
is clearly highlighted in the sections 1 and 2 of the GCLP. Implementation is
not in the remit of MEPA.
Rather it is assumed that third parties will see the wisdom of MEPA’s thoughts and
take the project in hand. Such an approach is not conducive to good planning, and
runs the risk of reducing land use planning to an academic exercise. It is usual, in the
case of projects funded by Government (including Local Councils), that a
Development Programme be part of the Plan, and that the plan and programme of
works be part of Government’s commitment when the Plan is approved by
Parliament. Such a commitment includes the acquisition of land and the funding of the
development.
Response: To date, this implementation role remains outside the remit of

Local Plans and MEPA.
5. BICC would wish to point out that through the approval of the Plan in Parliament,
Government would be making a commitment to its implementation. It is incumbent
on the Plan, therefore, to indicate the nature, scale, and revenue commitment
necessary for the implementation of at least the Government-funded projects.
Response: To date, this implementation role remains outside the remit of

Local Plans and MEPA. It is understood that Government or other
responsible entities will undertake projects specifically within the policy
framework indicated in the plan.
6. Through discussions with MEPA officers during their presentation to BICC, it was
agreed that, as a first step it would be beneficial to the public and Government
Departments if the Plan could include a table that would indicate responsibility for
implementation and the priorities as envisaged by MEPA. For example,
implementation could identify the party responsible for financing and undertaking the
project such as Government Department or Agency, or private sector initiative, and
priorities could indicate the timing of the project such as: Priority A: urgent
immediate action required; Priority B: construction to commence within 3 years;
Priority C: construction to commence within 7 years; and Priority D: construction to
commence between years 7 and 10.
Response: Priorities and implementation are outside the remit of the Local
Plan and MEPA, although there are advantages to the approach suggested
above, there are also a number of disadvantages including:
a) MEPA would be taking over government’s implementation role if the

suggested approach were to be adopted. MEPA’s role is principally to
oversee spatial planning and environmental issues.
b) Government policy and priorities can change dramatically over a
short period of time (depending on the prevailing socio-economic and
political conditions)
2
c) One should not preclude certain concepts and proposals simply

because the current day’s socio-economic situation does not permit
that certain justifiable (and especially strategic) interventions be
implemented.
7. It would follow from this that implementing agencies would incorporate the relevant
projects within their development programmes in the knowledge that there is a
Government commitment.
Response: Unfortunately, it does not automatically follow, although it is

assumed to do so. This has been proven in the past as a number of
Structure Plan policies directing agencies to undertake certain
interventions which were of a strategic nature have not yet been achieved.
Timing of Structure Plan Review

8. In order to introduce a degree of certainty into the planning process, MEPA should
give an indication as to the anticipated time frame for the submission to and approval
by Parliament of the reviewed Structure Plan.
Economic stimulus
9. Although one of the main directions of the Plan is to encourage development that
creates wealth and opportunities, it is lacking in clear guidance and incentives to
encourage the private sector to bring this about. Such incentives could be direct
fiscal measures, or they could be through the clear interpretation of polices and
guidelines at site level.
Response: Fiscal measures and other incentives although supported are

outside the remit of MEPA and Local Plans.
Building heights
10. The general policy of maintaining current building height limits is supported.
However, although height limitations are clearly indicated on plans for each
settlement, it is surprising that para 4.2.4 indicates that in scheduled areas other
height limitations might apply. In order to avoid doubt, it would be appropriate to
clearly indicate height limitations.
Response: Height limitations are clearly indicated in the Building Height

Limitation Maps 14.1-C to 14.15-C. It is envisaged that in only very
exceptional circumstances would the suggested height limitations be
curtailed. In Gozo, the height limitation is generally rather low and where it
is higher, there are no urban conservation areas and very few buildings
which are scheduled or worth scheduling excluding the village/town parish
churches which are in most cases the highest buildings in Gozo.
Vacant properties
11. In view of the fact that a considerable proportion of Gozo housing is vacant, MEPA’s
stance not to release further land for housing within the plan period is supported.
Land supply per se however, will not start to have an effect in reducing vacant
3
property numbers until it begins to run out, and in view of the fact that there is
enough land for over 5,500 houses, that time is well beyond the plan period. In the
meantime, Gozo’s inner-urban fabric will continue to decay Land supply, however, is
not the only tool available to planners to affect the numbers of vacant dwellings.
BICC would strongly recommend MEPA to investigate policies based on incentives
such as fiscal, multiple ownership, and housing standards / densities. BICC would be
pleased to assist in this regard.
Response: Changes to Schemes are addressed within the Development

Zone Rationalisation Exercise (2006).
Garage industries
12. The Plan rightly acknowledges the importance of micro-industries to the Gozo
economy, and indicates they should be retained within residential areas “where
sufficient mitigation measures are undertaken to render them acceptable”. The means by
which MEPA is to implement this policy is very unclear. It is possible that the new
Section 55 of the Development Planning Act will be applied; it allows MEPA to take
enforcement action where the appearance of a site or building harms the amenity of
an area, but there are no means in law where MEPA can require an operator to do
something about noise, dust etc unless he actually makes a planning application,
infringes his permit conditions, or in the case of a non-conforming use enjoying
existing use rights action may be possible if the nature of the use changes – if for
example it attracts more traffic or employs more people or becomes noisier.
Although there is considerable case law from abroad, the latter may be challenging in
Malta.
Response: These issues are addressed by the Environmental Protection

Directorate within MEPA and moreover since this issue is a national one it
needs to be examined strategically in the Structure Plan Review.
13. The Plan should make it very clear that, in the absence of either a planning application
from the operator, or the introduction of fiscal incentives, MEPA can do very little to
ameliorate the situation.
Response: Another option is to introduce detailed guidance which specifies

what is acceptable within residential areas and what is not and furthermore
what mitigation measures can be implemented, where it is possible to
follow this approach.
Economic and Environmental Impact of Plan Proposals

14. Large projects are usually subject to Environmental Impact Assessments. The Plan
itself is a large project, marshalling scarce resources towards particular objectives.
The use of, and constraints on resources will have economic consequences both for
the Government and the private sector. It is imperative that such consequences and
their alternatives are evaluated by way of an Environmental Impact Assessment
before the Plan is approved as a Government Policy. In this regard we would draw
your attention to Structure Plan Policy
4
POLICY SET 6: As soon as practicable after the commencement date of the

Structure Plan, Local Plans will be prepared for all existing built-up areas as
specified in Section 4 of Part 1 of this Statement, together with contiguous
Temporary Planning Schemes, with the objective of substantially improving
the environmental quality of such areas and providing for all suitable uses.
All Local Plans will be the subject of environmental impact analyses.
Response: Local Plans are not subject to strategic environmental

assessment. Also note that the reference is to environmental impact
analyses that was carried out through the local plan process by the
relevant competent experts in the respective fields. These studies
were assessed by the environmental management unit within MEPA
and found to be satisfactory.
Amenity
15. Specific guidelines / policies are needed for noise abatement. This is especially
important in relation to plant installed in new or rehabilitated buildings, such as
central air conditioning units, lifts, and heating units. Many complaints arise from
neighbours of new buildings where such plant has been installed. It is also very
important in respect of quarrying, and noisy sports such as off-roading. Rectification
of the problem after installation is much more expensive and difficult than dealing
with the problem at the building design stage.
Response: Would appreciate BICC assistance on this aspect?
Air Quality
16. Since considerable volumes of data from EPD air quality and dust monitoring
programmes are available for parts of the plan area, BICC would have expected the
high levels of air and dust pollution evident in the area to have been addressed by the
Plan.
Response: Air quality data does not necessarily imply that the exact
sources are pinpointed. Additionally, it is not the role of this plan to set out
guidelines relating to air quality. Air pollution needs to be addressed
nationally at the strategic level.
Environmentally Sustainable Development / Environmental Capacity

17. Although the concepts of Environmentally Sustainable Development and
Environmental Capacity are corner stones for the development of a sustainable plan,
these matters are not addressed in the Plan.
Response: These concepts are addressed in the GCLP Inception Report

which forms the basis of this plan.
The only mention is a vague statement under para 3.9, Rural Environment. BICC
finds this to be a serious omission, especially in view of the environmental sensitivity
of the islands and the problems associated with over-development, high levels of
visitors (and vehicles), and an extremely high car ownership rate. Although
translating the concept of living within our means into land use policies is not an easy
5
task, through its introduction at the beginning of the plan, members expected to find
policies predicated on environmental sustainability and capacity, in particular how the
building industry might be expected to respond.
Response: Environmental sensitivity of the island was taken into account to

such a degree that other submissions have recommended to government
that the plan should be approved without delay.
Entertainment Priority Areas

18. The Plan provides for the introduction of a number of Entertainment Priority Areas.
While individual businesses would not have an effect, the cumulative impact of many
new entertainment facilities could be considerable and hence the need to assess the
economic, social and traffic implications of the policy before its adoption.
Response: Although the point is a valid one, the designated areas are
already established as such thus the envisaged impact is not deemed to be
unacceptable in these areas. These impacts are also taken into account in
the development control application stage.
Energy efficient buildings

19. There are many techniques these days to improve on the energy efficiency of
buildings. Policies need to be developed to encourage architects and engineers to
move away from the well-trodden traditional path to require the use of techniques
such as solar water heating, special glazing, roof insulation etc and the plethora of
design techniques available and commonly used abroad. BICC has already formulated
Guidance Notes which MEPA might refer to.
Response: Comment noted. Policy GZ-UTIL-4 supports this approach.
Helicopter noise
20. The plan completely ignores the effects of helicopter noise, especially its disturbing
effect on humans and wildlife. Aircraft noise and the time when it arises needs to be
carefully controlled. The current location of the helicopter landing pad, which
requires the aircraft to pass close to areas that are already densely inhabited, and in
the future, as a result of development of projects like the Ta’ Cenc Heritage Park
facilities and accommodation, and Fort Chambray, the numbers of people exposed to
unacceptably disturbing noise will increase dramatically.
Response: Although a relevant issue, this is outside the remit of the LP to

control helicopter noise or its flight paths. The plan reserves land around
the current heliport for future needs.
21. BICC recommend that MEPA investigate the feasibility of a modest coastal
reclamation (using C&D Waste) to the East of Mgarr Harbour to accommodate a
heliport. The aviation facilities have been already committed at Xewkija.
Response: To distance helicopter related facilities from the Gozo Capital

would not only offset part of the advantage of the helicopter service, but it
would further congest Mgarr and would spoil an environmentally sensitive
6
area. Low flying helicopters can also be adversely affected by the nearby
topography and the ferry service.
Rings roads & by-passes

22. No development is permitted on the outer side of ring roads and by-passes that
delineate the edge of urban development. This rural edge often provides a
convenient site for indiscriminate fly tipping. However, where Local Councils have
built a wall along the edge of the road, fly tipping ceased. BICC would submit that
whoever opens the road be required to construct a wall on the side away from
development.
Response: Agreed. There is a specific policy on this point in GZ-EDGE-4.

23. Alternatively, MEPA should allow development on both sides. Development on one
side of the road only is a very uneconomic form of urban development; the costs of
roads & utilities have to be recouped from half the revenue that would have been
received had the road been developed on both sides.
Response: This directly contradicts the point above. If there is a limit to

development, there is a limit whether this is economical or otherwise. If
recouping of costs were a fundamentally determining factor, we would not
have any roads linking one settlement to another or any country roads.
Furthermore, further down in specific policy reactions to policies GZ-SETL-
1/2, BICC is indicating support for these policies.
Larger balconies
24. BICC feels that in situations where buildings enjoy good views, either panoramic or
in the case of inner urban areas, views of festa parades etc, there is a good case for
the depth of balconies to be increased to accommodate seating etc.
Response: This is a detail that needs to be addressed through other

planning guidance and not through the local plan.
Policy specific comments

25. The next section presents BICC’s comments on relevant policies.
7
Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

Summary of Local Plan Strategy
SETTLEMENTS &
HOUSING The Strategy for urban settlements is
• To constrain the expansion of existing settlements
• To ensure infill sites are developed
• To channel the location of businesses (retail, office, entertainment, tourism, industrial) to specific areas within the urban areas which minimise
environmental impacts and maximise operational efficiency;
• To protect the amenity of residential areas and enhance community identity
• To protect the historic fabric of urban areas;
• To protect the natural heritage of urban areas;
• To upgrade the quality of the urban environment.
GZ-LMDZ-1: Limits to Development BICC would point out that the site
Minor changes are proposed for consideration at the next Structure Plan indicated on Plan 2.12.1a (Xaghra)
review in order to rationalize the boundaries. is very prominent and is therefore
extremely sensitive with respect to
the landscape and visual amenity,
while it creates yet another ODZ
enclave.
Response: Changes to Schemes

are addressed within the
Development Zone
Rationalisation Exercise (2006).
The extension shown in Plan 2.14.3a

(Marsalforn) will result in development a
few metres above sea level, possibly
necessitating the construction of sea
defences. This seafront site would be
better rehabilitated for public open space.
Response: Refer to Map 2.14.1
8

in Appendix 2 Planning Control
Maps and Map 14.14-C1.
Proposal is based on a decision
by the Appeals Board. The
green strip and access have
been proposed in order to
permit greater pedestrian
access to the coast. Height has
also been reduced with respect
to other buildings in the area.
GZ-GNPR-1 Land not covered by the Plan Policies Reference to any other relevant material
MEPA will determine the acceptability of development permission applications planning considerations gives cause for
on land, which is not covered by policies in the Local Plan, in accordance with: concern. Material planning considerations is
the zoning conditions and building alignments, Policy and Design Guidance 2000, a long standing planning concept that is
and other relevant approved policies and design guidance, Structure Plan well defined abroad through a large body
policies, and any other relevant material planning considerations relating to the of case law. It is a relatively new concept
site and to its context. to planning in Malta, and although foreign
case law may be drawn upon, it is
incumbent on the MEPA to clarify the
matters that are considered to be material
planning considerations.
Response: There is a checklist
for what constitutes material
planning considerations in the
fact folder.
GZ-GNPR-2: Release of additional land for urban uses Support
The criteria for the release of additional land for development (in addition to The requirement that the site is an infill
that identified in the Plan) are: (abbreviated) pocket makes some of the other criteria
i. Housing demand from a high rate of household growth can not be met redundant
ii. Development would be associated with planning gain Response: Changes to Schemes
iii. The site should be well-contained and not invite further sprawl of are addressed within the
development into as yet uncommitted land, and be adjacent to existing principal Development Zone
9

development into as yet uncommitted land, and be adjacent to existing principal Development Zone
urban areas.
Rationalisation Exercise (2006).
v. The site is not scheduled or designated as a Strategic Open Gap.
vi. The site is not in an area that is too polluted or dangerous and is not visually
prominent
viii. The site is easily accessed, infrastructure utility provision is not a problem
and there are no steep slopes or sharp changes in level
xi. Site is close to existing or designated community facilities (including
shopping).
xii. The site promotes a logical extension of the street layout and does not
create awkwardly shaped blocks
xiv. The site is an infill pocket.
GZ-SETL-1 Containment of urban development Support

Urban development is to continue to be channelled to areas specifically
designated by this local plan for development.
GZ-SETL-2 Gaps between settlements Support

The gaps between urban areas are to be preserved as Strategic Space Gaps
wherein no new buildings or structures are allowed (abbreviation) except for
a) improving public access to the open countryside
b) providing opportunities for public informal recreation
c) maintaining and enhancing attractive landscapes and improving upon derelict
land through habitat
d) securing nature conservation
e) providing essential utilities and services as appropriate.
GZ-SETL-3 Special policy areas Note
Specific types of development and/or land-use are delineated at:
a) Mgarr Harbour (SP policy IIT 1)
b) Xewkija Heliport (SP policy AVN 4)
c) Cittadella (SP policy UCO 1. (4))
10

d) Fort Chambray (SP policy TOU 6.(6))
e) The industrial area due West of Xewkija Industrial
Estate (SP policy IND 3)
f) Ta’ Dbiegi Crafts Village (SP policy IND 3)
g) Ta’ Cenc (SP policy TOU 10, MCO 1(4))
Ghajnsielem Support
New / intensification of commercial development along the arterial route which
bisects Ghajnsielem (Triq Ta’ L-Imgarr) will not be permitted GZ-Ghjn-1
GZ-SETL-4 Settlement hierarchies Support

Rabat: Primary Town Centre with a number of Neighbourhood Centres.
Nadur, Xaghra and Ghajnsielem: Tertiary Town Centre.
Marsalforn, Xlendi and Mgarr : Tourism Priority Area.
The rest of the settlements in Gozo: residential with adequate local
administrative, community and local services facilities.
GZ-URSP-1 Urban open space Support

Various areas are designated as urban open spaces. There may be scope to
utilize the space underneath these urban open spaces subject to various caveats
such as archaeological significance or effect on infrastructural services.
GZ-EDGE-1 Design & height of buildings on the edge of urban areas This policy could discourage the
The massing and facades of new development overlooking ODZ areas is to be construction of additional floors (setback)
designed in such a manner as to respect the traditional edge of settlement and hence the ability of the housing stock
skylines. Additionally, it shall NOT be permissible to have blank party walls at to meet the needs of the increasing
the edge of a Development Zone. In such cases, the façade would need to have population. Response: All studies
apertures and to be separated from the Development Zone Boundary by a in Inception Report and earlier
back-garden (or side garden) of at least 3m. statements in this BICC report
Unless otherwise indicated the height limitation of Development Zone Edges indicate that this problem is
are to be 2 floors with a 3-course basement (ie. As per Policy and Design
11

are to be 2 floors with a 3-course basement (ie. As per Policy and Design very unlikely to occur.
Guidance 2000)
The proposed setbacks introduce
An additional floor to the two floors may be permissible provided that all the difficulties in terms of structural design,
following conditions are adhered to:
access and security. Response:
a) The area formerly qualified as a height relaxation area in terms of the Policy Penthouses introduce exactly
and Design Guidance 2000;
the same problem yet they are
b) The additional floor is recessed by at least 4.25 m;
requested where permitted.
c) Washrooms or other built structures on top of the additional floor shall
In particular, the proposal will make it
NOT be permissible;
difficult to provide a double leaf facade at
d) The site does not qualify as Ridge Edge Development; and the upper floor, and cause the common
e) The proposed development does not lie on a corner site. stairwell to be further into the structure,
necessitating a 4.25m corridor. It also
removes the possibility of ornate cornices
In cases where the two existing adjacent built plots (on BOTH sides of an
such as those typically found on old
undeveloped intervening plot) have more than two permitted floors, the
houses.
intervening plot may be allowed to reach the same height of the lower of the
adjacent plots. According to civil law a parapet wall 1.82m
high must be erected at roof level, negating
The provisions in PART 2 of the Policy and Design Guidance 2000 (or its
the visual effects sought by the setback.
subsequent revision) shall continue to apply. In cases of conflict with this policy,
the provisions of this local plan policy shall prevail. Response: This will be done
anyway so it is not a problem
with the setback or without it.
Washrooms are a necessity to modern
living and are traditionally placed on the
roof. MEPA needs to consider and give
guidance on their placement under the
setback policy. They are not allowed on
penthouses.
Response: Applicant still has
option to construct washrooms
in lieu of a recessed additional
floor.
Lastly, this policy removes the possibility of
common roof areas and common access
12

thereto. Response: This is the
same as for penthouses.
Building heights in Rabat The construction of a belvedere at this
The height of development in the vicinity of Triq l-Arcisqof Pietru Pace Is point will cause security problems for the
limited so that no point on the built structure (including roof structures) is abutting buildings. The belvedere would
higher than a level which is at least 2 metres below the existing finished floor provide an easy access point to abutting
level of the belvedere at Triq l-Arcisqof Pietru Pace. GZ-Rbat-9 roofs. Response: There is already
a security problem for some of
the existing buildings because
these have reached right till the
floor of the existing belvedere
and nobody forced the
developers to reach up to this
height. The plan is proposing a
slight lowering to reduce the
security problem.
Building heights in Marsalforn Support
The built-up area within the development zone of Marsalforn is to be 4 floors
subject to various conditions regarding footprint, frontage, street width, and on-
site parking. GZ-Zbug-1
GZ-EDGE-2 New buildings on Ridge Edge Development Support

Special attention is to be given to the design of building elevations overlooking
the ODZ areas. Elevations should strive to emulate in terms of massing, colour,
texture and height, the traditional architectural grammar found at the urban
edge of the Gozitan settlements
GZ-EDGE-3 Structures in backyards (excluding ridge development areas) Support

In cases where the distance (measured along the depth of a property) between
a street frontage and the nearest Development Zone boundary is more than
30m. it may be permissible to have a structure within the back-garden,
13

GZ-EDGE-4 Green edges to roads This policy has considerable
Where an existing carriageway defines a Development Zone boundary, a implementation difficulties: such
development-free green corridor (between 3 to 10 m. wide) is to be development would work against
designated. expansion of urban areas in the future;
property owners loose value of land and
Implementation is to be undertaken by Local Councils.
are expected to cede it to Local Councils
Proposals by local councils to create green verges for public enjoyment shall be for development that would enhance the
favourably considered. value of neighbouring urban land; no
indication as to the availability of funding.
Response: BICC has previously
supported the endorsement of
the existing DZ boundaries in
reaction to policies GZ-SETL-
1/2. This is in line with these
policies.
GZ –WHIT-1 Comprehensive residential development An interesting proposal which BICC will
Various former white areas are rezoned for residential uses to be developed in observe closely.
a comprehensive manner, following a layout plan which shall be submitted for
approval, jointly by the respective owner/s.
a) The proposals shall not cause unacceptable adverse effects (from a planning
point of view) on adjacent third parties or on the nearby transport routes or
amenities.
b) After the layout of each area is approved by MEPA, the infrastructure
requirements (street formation, utility extension and ducting) for the relevant
area have to be in place prior to commencement of any ground preparation or
building works related to residential development.
Xlendi development Support

Xlendi is zoned into three main distinct areas: an area for apartments (four (4)
storeys high) near the mouth of il-Wied tax-Xlendi; an area for semi-detached
dwellings at il-Qsajjem wherein there will be no built development of the
schemed side gardens (1 storey height along on the higher carriageway and 2
floors along the lower carriageway; and an area zoned for detached flatted
dwellings at il-Kantra where the height limit is 3 floors
14

dwellings at il-Kantra where the height limit is 3 floors
Tourism related facilities within the Tourism Priority Area (ie. the whole area
within the Development Zone at Xlendi) area is to be developed according to
the provisions of policies GZ-TRSM-3 to 5. GZ-Mnxr-2
GZ-ENCL-1 Greenhouse areas Noted

A number of enclaves ODZ shall be considered adequate for the development
of greenhouses.
GZ-RLST-1 Boundary adjustments Category 1 settlements (close to urban areas) Support

Adjustments to settlement boundaries for dwelling units and local commercial
uses
GZ-RLST-2 Boundary adjustments Category 2 settlements (large settlements Support

away from urban areas): redevelopment
Redevelopment in these large ODZ settlements for housing may be permitted if
the land is not scheduled and subject to various conditions on the size of the
footprint and floorspace, access, building height, design and parking
GZ-RLST-3 Boundary adjustments Category 2 settlements (large settlements Support with the exception that the
away from urban areas): new buildings mature trees should be limited to those in
New dwelling units may be permitted if the site is in a gap of not more than 6.0 the MEPA Planting Guidelines.
m. and abuts blank party walls at least one storey high on both sides, it does not Response: Noted
contain any mature trees, the design parameters of policy GZ-RLST-2 are
observed, and the development does not conflict with any other relevant
policies in this plan.
GZ-RLST-4 Boundary adjustments Category 3 settlements (small settlements Support

away from urban areas)
15

In areas designated as small settlements within rural areas development and/or
redevelopment of dwellings units is permissible except for where the scheduled
or listed status of a building precludes such a development.
The same conditions as GZ-RLST-3 apply
GZ-RLST-5 Farmhouses Support

MEPA will give favourable consideration to the upgrading of existing permitted
residential farmhouses in Gozo, provided that all the conditions of the Design
Guidance on Farmhouses and Farm-buildings (or its subsequent revision) are
adhered to.
GZ-RLST-6 New rural dwellings Support

Requests for the construction of new rural dwellings in Gozo or Comino will
be refused.
GZ-RLST-7 New dwellings on Comino Support

No new dwellings on Comino
GZ-HOUS-1 Residential Areas Support

The following new / extensions to existing uses are acceptable in RAs.
Dwellings, small good neighbour residential institutions and those located close
to a town or neighbourhood centre, health facilities and nursing homes in Rabat Specific guidelines on noise control are
only, hotels and hostels that replace existing unscheduled buildings in needed.
Entertainment Priority areas in Marsalforn and Xlendi;, small shops and offices,
small food and drink outlets in Rabat only, small neighbour friendly social and Response: Noise needs to be
recreational facilities in Rabat, Xaghra, Nadur, Xewkija, and Ghajnsielem only, addressed at the strategic level
kindergartens / day nurseries, small neighbour friendly businesses and light and not through the local plan
Industry, small storage. as it is a national issue.
16
GZ-HOUS-2 Residential Priority Areas Support

Residential Priority Areas (RPAs) are designated in various places.
The acceptable land-uses (new and extensions to existing uses) within the
RPAs are villas and bungalows, terraced houses, small shops on identified sites
GZ-HOUS-3 Housing Improvement Action Area: Rabat Support

Redevelopment of properties within the Housing Improvement Action Area
(HIAA) is encouraged provided that:
a) a better standard of residential accommodation is provided;
b) innovative forms of housing design and layout are adopted;
c) non-residential uses within the HIAAs will be considered provided that:
(i) they fall within a use class that is acceptable in a residential area;
(ii) they will not compromise a possible residential rehabilitation /
redevelopment project; and
(iii) when forming part of a mixed-use scheme, they should not occupy more
than 10% of the total floorspace of the scheme.
GZ-HOUS-4 Government or Joint Office land Support

Government or Joint Office land parcels within development schemes which The plan would benefit from a plan
are larger than 500 m2 and which are not earmarked by this local plan for other showing the location of government / joint
purposes, shall be safeguarded for public housing projects. This policy shall only office land.
be applicable to the councils of Ghajnsielem, Xewkija and Rabat).
Response: It is not in the remit
of MEPA to identify land
ownership as other agencies
are responsible for this. MEPA
also had some problems with
obtaining reliable information
on both these fronts and such
17

information would have to be
accurate.
Ghajnsielem / Fort Chambray Support
Boundaries are fixed, a route around the edges of the development shall be left
for free and unhindered public access, and is a presumption against
intensification of the built footprint or increase in heights. GZ-Ghjn-7
Strategy
TRANSPORT
A wide range of policies have been formulated in an attempt to counter the surge in car ownership on Gozo where there are 18,000 cars for the
30,000 residents, plus a substantial number of tourist vehicles (domestic and hire cars
In recognition of the importance of the inter-island ferry services, provision is made for the expansion of the port and access thereto.
Road safety and reduction of the impact of vehicles on amenity are also accorded priority.
GZ-TRAN-1 Road hierarchy Support
A road hierarchy is proposed along with a number of modifications intended to
update and rationalize the network.
The road hierarchy will be used as the framework for transport planning,
helping to determine the priority for highway investment (maintenance,
improvements and new construction) and traffic management (route signing,
lorry routing, local schemes, and traffic calming).
Various routes will be safeguarded from development in order to accommodate
an eventual development of a route. a) A link between Triq Viani and Triq Patri
Camenzuli in Rabat and b) An emergency link from Mgarr Port to Triq L-
Imgarr.
GZ-TRAN-2 Junction improvements A time frame for the improvement of the

MEPA will encourage appropriate government agencies to improve congested identified junctions is needed so that the
or poorly designed junctions on the main road network. The improvements private sector may develop its plans A
should take account of the needs of vulnerable road users. policy that places an embargo on
development pending an unscheduled
No development permits that might adversely affect the satisfactory
government action is not acceptable.
improvement of these sites shall be issued. Where major developments will
produce a material adverse impact at junctions, in terms of safety and/or Response: Priorities and
congestion, MEPA will require the developer to undertake improvements or timeframes are not in the remit
mitigating measures. of MEPA but other agencies
18

such as ADT.
GZ-TRAN-3 Traffic calming Support

Working with the local councils and the Malta Transport Authority, MEPA will Programme and funding?
seek the implementation of traffic calming and other traffic management
Response: Programming and
measures to improve road safety, particularly for vulnerable road users, and to
discourage inappropriate through traffic, notably in residential areas and areas funding are not in the remit of
with high pedestrian activity. MEPA as it does not have an
New developments should be designed to discourage extraneous traffic and implementation role.
restrain vehicle speeds, so as to produce a safe, pleasant environment and give
priority to sustainable modes of transport.
New road layouts should conform to appropriate standards that ensure
satisfactory visibility and geometry. Additionally, development proposals should
not adversely affect safety and traffic flow at existing junctions and roads.
Signals Support
Traffic lights should be located near strategic junctions. GZ-Ghjn-2: Programming?
Response: Programming is not
in the remit of MEPA as it does
not have an implementation
role.
GZ-TRAN-4 Amenity Support
MEPA will strongly encourage schemes to secure the enhancement of the areas Programme & funding?
in and around the centre of settlements. The schemes should pay particular
attention to:
funding are not in the remit of
a) reducing traffic speeds and improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists;
MEPA as it does not have an
b) reducing the visual impact of parking, and providing facilities for cyclists and
motorcyclists; implementation role.
c) providing more space for informal recreation, and in some cases providing
the space for street cafes and similar uses; and
d) achieving a better balance between the requirement for
parking and the need for attractive public space.
19
Zebbug Support
MEPA in consultation with the Local Council will strongly encourage schemes Further details indicating the proposed
to improve road safety, increase pedestrian comfort, and upgrade programming, financing and maintenance of
environmental conditions in the main areas of visitor activity. GZ-Zbug-2 the scheme are needed.
budgeting are not in the remit
of MEPA as it does not have an
implementation role.
GZ-TRAN-5 Lorry network Support in principle
MEPA will support the introduction of a lorry route network in order to;
a) ensure that quarry traffic uses the most suitable routes; Further details indicating the proposed
b) minimize nuisance to residents; and programming, financing and maintenance of
the scheme are needed. This scheme
c) limit damage to the road network.
could place such a heavy burden on quarry
The proposed lorry route network is based on the proposed arterial / owners, thereby jeopardising the success
distributor roads, plus designated access routes to and from quarry entrances.
of the scheme. Response:
In the case of quarries SG01/SG03/SG07, MEPA will permit works to upgrade
the access route across Wied il-Kbir, to establish a lorry route, which avoids Programming, funding and
Kercem. maintenance are not in the
To ensure that the network is effective, traffic management measures and remit of MEPA as it does not
regulations will be required. This could include lorry prohibitions and possibly have an implementation role.
width restrictions to ensure that unsuitable routes are not used. In the cases
where the lorry route network overlaps the cycle way network particular
attention should be paid to providing measures that limit the conflict between
these two modes. MEPA will encourage the Malta Transport Authority to give
priority to road maintenance, both structural and routine, along the sections of
the lorry route network, which pass through residential areas. This will ensure
that problems associated with noise and vibration causing by the passage of
lorries are reduced as much as possible.
MEPA will require all applications for new quarries, or extension of existing
ones, to contribute toward the cost of introducing and maintaining the lorry
route network.
20

GZ-TRAN-6 Cycleways Support in principle
MEPA will support the introduction a network of cycle ways, particularly in the
less hilly parts of the island. . Detailed planning is necessary before the
The network should include secure cycle parking in pedestrian zones and at introduction of restrictions on
major tourist attractions, traffic management to aid cyclists, and promotional neighbouring development potential.
schemes to encourage greater levels of cycling.
Response: Hardly any
Development permission will not be granted for developments that will
restrictions are envisaged
jeopardize this network, and major developments located close to it may be
expected to contribute towards it and associated measures. To ensure that given that the activity is not
concerted and co-coordinated efforts are made to produce a high quality cycle something new, it is a question
network, it is recommended that Government takes on the responsibility for of formalising and introducing
maintaining and improving the roads that form part of the network. appropriate signage and safety
measures to promote this
sustainable activity.
GZ-TRAN-7 Residents Parking Zones Support
To be encouraged in Rabat/Fontana, Marsalforn, Xlendi, Mgarr Harbour, and Need clear guidelines on parking standards
village squares where parking demand is high. In determining the appropriate
Response: MEPA encourages
level of parking for a development MEPA will have due regard to the level of
public transport provision and the environmental conditions in the locality. and supports the respective
local councils and ADT in the
implementation of RPZs.
GZ-TRAN-8 Car Parks Support
MEPA will permit the construction of basement car parks at Rabat and Mgarr There must be scope for a reduction in
harbour, as part of the Gozo Communal Centre project and the harbour numbers of commuter cars parked at the
improvement scheme, respectively. In the case of the harbour car park, the harbour through the use of car pooling
parking needs of those commuting to and from the mainland must have priority and a better bus service.
over recreational parking.
Response: Agreed but this falls
under remit of other agencies
who can only be encouraged to
implement.
GZ-TRAN-9 Motorcycles Support
In order to encourage the use of motorcycles, MEPA will require all major Guidance is needed on the numbers of
developments to provide motorcycle parking at appropriate locations more
21

developments to provide motorcycle parking at appropriate locations more m/cycle parking bays. Response:
convenient than car parking.
Noted.
GZ-TRAN-10 Managed parking schemes Support in principle

MEPA will encourage the preparation of parking management schemes to
upgrade and regularize car parking at the following sensitive areas, situated by Who will implement this policy?
the coast:
a) Qawra (Dwejra Bay and Inland Sea)
and supports the respective
b) Xwieni Bay local councils and ADT in the
c) Ramla Bay implementation of parking
d) San Blas Bay management schemes.
e) Dahlet Qorrot
f) Hondoq ir-Rummien
g) Mgarr ix Xini.
Depending on the extent of the proposal, the nature of the intervention and the
sensitivity of the effected area, an environmental planning statement may be
required.
Xlendi – parking Support

MEPA will encourage schemes to improve road safety, maximize existing Implementation agency & programme
parking facilities, and upgrade the environment in the busiest parts of Xlendi. priority?
Measures include: semi-pedestrianisation of the end of Triq ir-Rabat to link the
two existing paved areas; providing a link between Triq iz-Zirzieb and Triq is-
Sienja/Triq is-Sajjieda, to reduce the amount of traffic passing through the and supports the respective
proposed semi-pedestrianised area; introducing a one-way circulation around local council and ADT in the
the main car park to rationalize circulation and increase the number of spaces implementation of parking
available; provision of pavements and landscaping on both sides of Triqir-Rabat management schemes.
on the approach to the car park; traffic calming along Triq San Xmun to
compensate for the lack of pavements and slow traffic near an apparent
accident “black spot”; and provision of landscaping and a proper layout at the Il-
Kantra car park. GZ-Mnxr-3
22

Traffic improvement in Rabat Support
MEPA will support the introduction of comprehensive measures to reduce
congestion, improve parking, and significantly upgrade the environment within
the Rabat UCA. GZ-Rbat-8
GZ-TRAN-11 Mgarr Harbour Support

The plan makes allowance for the upgrading / expansion of Mgarr Harbour,
subject to impact assessment.
GZ-TRAN-12 Jetties at Marsalforn, Xlendi and Hondoq ir-Rummien Support
The plan supports the repair and upgrading of the existing jetties and buoys at
Marsalforn, Xlendi and Hondoq ir-Rummien. Proposals for the extension of
these facilities (whether in width or length) would usually require, an
Environmental Impact Assessment
Swimming zones at Xlendi, Marsalforn and Hondoq ir-Rummien, as well as the
zoning of other marine activities, in order to minimize conflicts and increase
safety measures in these heavily used bays will be encouraged.
GZ-TRAN-13 Destination ports Support
MEPA will encourage the Malta Maritime Authority, in consultation with the
Malta Tourism Authority, to develop Destination Ports at Marsalforn, Ramla l-
Hamra, Dahlet Qorrot, iz-Zirka and Hondoq ir-Rummien, together with San
Niklaw, Santa Marija, the Blue Lagoon area and between the Blue Lagoon and
Ras l-Irqieqa on Comino. in order to improve the tourism product, upgrade
facilities for boating and yachting while protecting the environmental resources.
Subject to the findings of an Environmental Impact Study.
Comino Support
MEPA will encourage the development of Destination Ports in appropriate
areas around Comino with a view to completely prohibit anchoring of individual
boats in the Marine Conservation Area established in policy GZ-Ghjn-12.
GZ-Ghjn-15
GZ-TRAN-14 Airfield Support
23

Land at Xewkija is safeguarded for an airfield. The areas immediately outside In order to provide certainty to land
the safeguarded area are to be developed for informal rural recreation. owners and investors in Gozo projects,
the timing of the project needs to be
indicated.
Strategy:
SOCIAL
WELFARE Consolidate & improve existing facilities
GZ-SOCF-1 New Schools Support
New schools in Rabat are encouraged provided the site is large enough for
sports facilities and further expansion, it is easily accessible; landscaped, and
uses energy saving devices
No schools will be developed ODZ.
GZ-SOCF-2 Upgrade schools Support

MEPA shall favourably consider proposals to upgrade and/or better utilize
existing schools in Gozo, so long as the proposals are confined to the current
footprint of the school or an area specifically identified for their expansion.
Change of use of existing buildings (within the Development Zone) is
encouraged.
A site of 4ha or over is safeguarded in Rabat the provision of additional school Support
facilities GZ-Rbat-6
GZ-SOCF-3 Health centres Support

Upgrading of local health centres is encouraged.
Gozo General Hospital Support

The area around the Gozo General Hospital will be safeguarded from
development to cater for future expansion of the hospital. GZ-Rbat-7
24

development to cater for future expansion of the hospital. GZ-Rbat-7
GZ-SOCF-4 Cemeteries Support

Requests for the extension of existing cemeteries will only be considered if it is
demonstrated that the existing cemetery facilities are full and cannot be more
intensively used, the extension is within 183m. from the edge of a development
zone, it is not in an aquifer protection zone, not scheduled; and is subject to an
Environmental Impact Assessment process.
Gharb - Ta’ Pinu Support

The site of the Ta’ Pinu Sanctuary and the procession trail leading to the
Ghammar hill is designated as a Site of Special Religious Significance (SSRS).
MEPA would welcome proposals for the sensitive landscaping of the square in
front of the Church and the rationalization of the parking facilities within the
site. GZ-Ghrb-2
GZ-SOCF-5 Day & night shelters Support

Proposals for day or night shelters in Town Centres and at locations easily
accessed preferably by public transport within development zones will be
supported.
GZ-SOCF-6 Access for all Support
MEPA will give favourable consideration to requests for development
permission to urban projects which promote urban mobility of persons with
special needs. These projects should conform to the guidance “Access for All”
or its subsequent revision.
Ghajnsielem Support
The space due south and southeast of the Ghajnsielem parish church is
reserved for social and community facilities. Existing open spaces in the area
shall remain essentially free from built structures. GZ-Ghjn-4
25

Strategy
UTILITIES
Utilities to be more land use efficient
Underground utilities to be favoured
Small scale alternative energy schemes promoted
Flood protection & runoff harvesting is encouraged
Solid waste management & sewage treatment: sites identified
GZ-UTIL-1 Sharing underground utility ducts Support

MEPA promotes the sharing of common facilities (eg. underground ducts, cables This will not solve the problem of financing
etc.) by different service providers. To this effect, service providers are & conflicting timing
encouraged to utilize existing service facilities used by other service providers
as opposed to the creation of new networks. Service providers are also
encouraged to liaise amongst each other and with the respective local councils Response: Programming and
to ensure the least possible disruption to the continuity of service provision. funding are not in the remit of
GZ-UTIL-2 Electricity supply & substations Support
MEPA shall give favourable consideration to proposals for upgrading of the
electricity supply in Gozo provided that the following points are observed:
a) in urban areas (especially Cittadella and other urban conservation areas),
preference shall be given to under grounding of cables; and
b) new distribution centres or substations intended to consolidate the
electricity supply in urban areas shall be constructed within Development
Zones. Substations shall not be permitted on scheduled sites. New substations
in UCAs should preferably be avoided.
Substations on ridge edges shall, unless they are incorporated within existing
buildings, include a 5 m. perimeter around the building, 3 m. of which shall be
earmarked for soft landscaping. The perimeter wall shall be in unrendered and
unpainted franka stone.
GZ-UTIL-3 Facilities related to electricity supply Support

Proposals for the installation or maintenance of facilities related to electricity
distribution (including trenching, laying of cables, erection of poles etc.) in areas
26

distribution (including trenching, laying of cables, erection of poles etc.) in areas
ODZ shall be undertaken in such a manner as to cause the least possible
disturbance.
Electricity distribution centre at Xewkija Support

Proposals for a new electricity distribution centre at Xewkija shall be favourably
considered by MEPA, within the Xewkija Development Zone, preferably within
or close to the industrial area. GZ-Xwki-4
GZ-UTIL-4 Alternative energy Support

Proposals for the generation of power from solar energy through the utilization Consideration could be given to using the
of the large surfaces on existing permitted buildings (eg. factories), will be given roofs of schools too. Response:
favourable consideration in areas earmarked for industry but measures to
Although GZ-UTIL-4 refers
mitigate against visual impact shall be incorporated in the design of the
generating scheme. primarily to factory roofs its
There is a general presumption against large-scale wind generating facilities on application on other buildings is
Gozo and Comino. Proposals for generation of power from wind energy worth considering.
through offshore structures will normally be favourably considered. Wind No consideration given to the promotion
generation structures should preferably be not closer that 100 m. from the of solar water heating or energy efficient
shoreline. buildings, nor the use of agricultural waste
in bioremediation / electricity generation.
Response: DC2005 regulates
and supports such measures.
Wind generation needs incentives & a
market for surplus electricity.
Response: Policy GZ-UTIL-4
encourages the introduction of
offshore based wind farms due
to the landscape sensitivity of
Gozo and Comino.
In view of the pending electricity shortages
(see MEPA subject paper) very serious
consideration needs to be given to on-
27

consideration needs to be given to on-
shore wind generating facilities. A balance
will need to be struck between the need
for electricity and visual / noise impacts.
Response: Most of the
electricity needs are for micro-
climate control where changes
to the thermal efficiency of our
buildings will go a long way to
offset the foreseen shortages.
This was also highlighted in the
National Seminar on
Sustainability held in Valletta
on 1/11/02. There is no issue of
balance here as at the present
point in time, the shift is
decidedly against the on-shore
use of these structures in Gozo
(apart from noise and scenic
issues there are also issues of
preclusion of public enjoyment,
private land, unreliability in
terms of supply-demand
coherence, cost of connecting
existing network to remotes
areas etc.)
Deep water off the coast of Malta
generally precludes viable reclamation.
Response: There is no need for
reclamation as the structures
can be anchored in a manner
28

similar to offshore oil platforms.
The generation of electricity from
alternative energy sources presumes that
Enemalta would allow the surplus
electricity to be fed into the national grid,
and that Enemalta would purchase same.
Without this commitment any meaningful
alternative energy project would be a non-
starter. Response: This is already
introduced by Enemalta.
GZ-UTIL-5 Dark Skies Support
MEPA will request that proposals including outdoors illumination will have
luminaries which are energy efficient and have an Upward Light Ratio of 0%.
MEPA will also request that low-wattage, low level lighting is employed in public
gardens and that in environmentally sensitive areas, illumination levels should be
kept to the barest minimum.
GZ-UTIL-6 Water supply Support

Proposals for additions to existing facilities related to the water supply system MEPA needs to take action against the
in Gozo shall be favourably considered by MEPA subject to various water pollution arising from animal
environmental husbandry, especially in the Mgarr ix-Xini
catchment
Response: Noted. It is not a
local plan issue and is in the
remit of the agricultural
authorities and the EPD.
GZ-UTIL-7 Runoff harvest: dams Support
Proposals for the construction of additional water retaining dams in Gozitan Restoration of the Mgarr ix-Xini dam
valleys (to make better use of surface runoff) require an Environmental Impact ought to be considered. Response:
Assessment.
Noted.
In all cases, valleys that have been scheduled as level 1 or level 2, or qualify to
be scheduled as such, should be avoided for water catchment purposes.
Maintenance and upgrading of existing dams will be preferred to the
construction of new ones. Interventions on existing dammed areas, that have
29

construction of new ones. Interventions on existing dammed areas, that have
since been colonized by environmentally important species, may also be subject
to an Environmental Impact Assessment.
GZ-UTIL-8 Flood protection Support

The plan identifies a number of areas as prone to flooding. In these areas .
MEPA shall only consider requests for new development favourably for water
management, environmental conservation, rural informal recreation, and
maintenance.
Kercem Support
The watercourse protection channel feeding into Wied tal-Lunzjata will be kept
free from any development or other obstructions to surface water flow. GZ-
Kerc-4
GZ-UTIL-9 Runoff harvest: reservoirs Support
MEPA encourages initiatives to channel surface runoff conveyed through
country-roads onto the surrounding fields and/or into appropriate agricultural
irrigation reservoirs (where permitted). These reservoirs shall be constructed
in a manner whereby the perimeter above ground shall not be higher than 1.2
m. above the surrounding soil surface and shall be constructed in random
rubble stone.
The planting of indigenous, archaeophytic or fruit trees around such reservoirs
is encouraged.
GZ-UTIL-10 Fuel storage Support

Guidelines are given for the development of new fuel storage facilities, including
underground tanks, landscaping, good access, within 500 m. from the road
linking Mgarr Harbour to the south- eastern edge of Victoria, more than 100 m.
away from residential areas, and that the site is not scheduled. An
environmental impact assessment is required
GZ-UTIL-11 Underground utilities Support

In scheduled areas MEPA will encourage the undergrounding of new cables, or Cost to be borne by utility companies, not
re-routed.
30

re-routed. the private sector. Response: Noted.
Priority should be given to the Cittadella, to buildings in UCAs, to scheduled This is one of the considered
sites and buildings which qualify for scheduling. In all such cases, care should be planning gain measures by
taken to prevent damage to existing facades and to carefully conceal the
underground ducting underneath a planned paving or surfacing scheme. MEPA for the public good.
Preference shall be given to underground schemes which permit maintenance,
repair or upgrading with minimal disturbance to surface features or adjacent
services.
GZ-UTIL-12 Antennae
Requests for development permission to erect antennae on scheduled buildings Support
will not normally be given favourable consideration, unless the antennae are
well hidden from view.
GZ-UTIL-13 Sewage treatment Support

The sewage treatment plant for Gozo is to be located near Ras il-Hobz. In order to provide certainty to land
Proposals for the recycling of treated water in the vicinity will be favourably owners and investors in Gozo projects,
considered, provided that reservoirs and pipes are concealed. An EIA may be the timing of the project needs to be
required. indicated.
Sewage treatment on Comino Implementation?
MEPA will encourage the provision of alternative means of sewage management Response: MEPA does not have
for Comino, with a view to eliminate the current sewage outflows from the
an implementation role.
Island. The preferred option would be a small sewage treatment plant in the
hotel grounds. GZ-Ghjn-16 Response: Previous comments
on this issue refer.
GZ-UTIL-14 Sewage pumping stations Support
Proposals for the construction of sewage pumping stations in rural areas need
to show that it cannot be accommodated within the development zones, it is
sunk into the ground, overflow buffer tanks are beneath the pumps, it is
landscaped, and that there are adequate safeguards to prevent overflow of
31

landscaped, and that there are adequate safeguards to prevent overflow of
sewage onto surrounding areas in the event that pump failure occurs.
GZ-UTIL-15 Solid waste management Support

Solid waste in Gozo shall be processed through a transfer
station
GZ-UTIL-16 Xaghra waste tip Premature to decide on the eventual use
The existing waste tip at Xaghra shall be designated as a Public Informal of the site. It could be many years before
Recreational Area; it will be afforested. This policy lists a number of conditions the site will be in a condition where it can
to be addressed by an application be safely opened to public use.
Response: A decision has been
taken and publicly announced.
GZ-UTIL-17 Armed forces land What is the justification for the on-going
The land near Qala is to be safeguarded for use by the Armed Forces in Gozo. sterilisation of this land through its use by
However, in view of the ecological and scientific importance of the entire the armed forces. Response: There
Qortin, proposals for development in the area is restricted to military facilities is no sterilisation here, just
such as rifle ranges. This policy lists a number of conditions to be addressed by definition of the area where
an application including the need for an EIA.
future interventions can take
place and policy guidance on
these interventions. Note that
area is ecologically and
scenically highly sensitive.
Town centres to be graded according to a hierarchy; the latter controls the nature of permitted land uses
COMMERCE &
INDUSTRY Industry to be encouraged to locate on land near Xewkija
Specific proposals for micro industries & incubator facilities
Sites housing construction plant to be cleaned up
Proposals for restoration of disused quarries
Fireworks factories to be contained
GZ-CMRC-1 Retail hierarchy Support
32

The following designations are suggested: -
a) Primary Town Centre (Primary Retail Frontage) – Rabat urban core
b) Primary Town Centre (Secondary Retail Frontage) – Rabat periphery
c) Neighbourhood Centre – Rabat Periphery (new housing areas)
d) Tertiary Town Centre – Nadur, Xaghra and Ghajnsielem
MEPA will support initiatives from public agencies and the public sector which
contribute to the enhancement of the external environment of Town Centres,
such as, pedestrianisation/pedestrian priority and traffic management schemes,
landscaping of public areas and public transport services which add to their
attraction as a retail hub.
Shops in il-Borgo, Rabat Support
Whilst MEPA will promote economic activity within the Borgo, there shall be a 50m2 limit should be for shop area only
presumption against the creation of new commercial outlets with a gross floor and not include storage space.
area higher than 50 m2, .and against the creation of projecting features (such as
Response: Although MEPA
air-conditioning units), which disrupt the continuity of the streetscape.
promotes economic activity
There shall also be a presumption against the creation of new basements within
Il Borgo. Gz-Rbat-3 within the Borgo, this is
balanced against the sensitivity
of the UCA characteristics of
the area.
Gozo Communal Centre – Rabat Support
A site is reserved for the development of the Gozo Communal Centre in What about the bus terminus, the playing
accordance with a development brief approved by MEPA. field, and the football ground that are
The main objectives of the development include the upgrading of this central replaced by the communal centre?
part of Rabat, grouping of key public facilities to enhance public access, the Response: These are being
provision of employment and revenue generating opportunities, an
considered through a
underground car-park. GZ-Rbat-4:
development brief for the area.
Development of this site could be very

difficult. Excavations into the very deep
clay underlying the site could affect the
foundations of other buildings in the
33

foundations of other buildings in the
vicinity. Response: A geological
survey has been commissioned
and MEPA is aware of
geological conditions in the
area.
GZ-CMRC-2 Land uses Support
The acceptable land-uses at ground floor within the Primary Retail Frontage of
the Primary Town Centre and within all frontages located within the Tertiary
Town Centre are shops, offices, food and drink outlets, non-residential
institutions and cinemas / theatres / halls, band clubs, social clubs, amusement
arcades, tourism accommodation, conference centres. There are restrictions
on the amount of street frontage that certain uses may occupy in the primary
town centre.
GZ-CMRC-3 Upper floor uses Support
The following uses are acceptable on upper floors within all Town Centres:
dwelling units, residential institutions, hostels, education facilities, and any other
users which may add to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre.
GZ-CMRC-4 Neighbourhood centres Support

Rabat and Fontana
Retailing is to remain the predominant use at ground floor level. Small
supermarkets and other shops with a combined sales and storage area of up to
250 m.2 would be allowed in this centre, together with other defined local and
community services. Other ground floor level uses appropriate for the
Neighbourhood Centre are local retail, small food and drink outlets, dwellings
band clubs and social clubs, non-residential institutions, and offices.
GZ-CMRC-5 Small shops not in a centre Support

Small shops with a combined sales and storage area of up to 50 m2 may be
allowed without an automatic requirement for additional off-street parking,
34

allowed without an automatic requirement for additional off-street parking,
provided that the proposal will not threaten the residential character or
function of the area, and that they are neighbour friendly.
GZ-CMRC-6 Specialty shops Support

Proposals for speciality shopping provision outside the designated town centres
will be considered on their individual merits and will be subject to various Plan would benefit from Guidelines
requirements including controls on scale and type of specialist shopping, the
Response: Noted.
proposal will not undermine the vitality and viability of a Primary or Tertiary
Town Centre, and neighbour friendly. The developer will need to present
detailed reasoning to justify the need to provide such facilities in the proposed
location, rather than within a designated Town Centre;
GZ-CMRC-7 Showrooms and large food stores Support

Showrooms and large food stores should be located within the Primary Town
Centre - Secondary Retail Frontage (Rabat periphery).
GZ-CMRC-8 Offices Support

Small-offices within Residential Areas are acceptable provided they adhere to It is presumed that small offices will still
the provisions of policy GZ-HOUS-1 require their own street entrance.
However, MEPA shall not favourably consider requests for the lateral or
vertical expansion of buildings in the older part of Rabat for office development.
In this area, parking requirements will be met through the provisions of the
Commuted Parking Payment Scheme.
GZ-CMRC-9 Micro enterprises Support

Various areas are identified for micro-enterprises. They would not become
available until the approval of the Structure Plan review. A Business Incubation Time is of the essence with regard to the
Centre on one of the sites would be favourably considered. The design of the completion / approval of the Structure
sites are to address building height than 8 m. above the finished surrounding Plan review.
surfaces, at least 30% of the site is left as open space to accommodate vehicular
circulation and landscaping, at least 25% of the built-up area is for warehousing;, Response: Noted.
underground services, and perimeter landscaping.
35

The Plan indicates that the problem lies in
existing urban areas but does not address
the resolution of the land use conflicts. To
what extent can S55 of the Development
Planning Act be applied? This goes beyond
the remit of S55 in development planning
act. Response: On one front, new
sites for accommodating SMEs
are proposed. On the other
hand, it acknowledges that
some operators could be
allowed to operate in
residential areas provided that
a number of conditions are
satisfied and pre-specified
mitigating measures
implemented. Furthermore low
impact Class 11 industrial uses
are permitted within residential
areas as per policy GZ-HOUS-1.
GZ-CMRC-10 Manufacturing Support
An area near Xewkija will continue to be safeguarded for Manufacturing
Industry.
Construction industry related enterprises are not permitted in this area
Xewkija industrial land Support

The land near Xewkija is be earmarked for Large Scale Industry. The existing Timing of Structure Plan Review approval?
green areas around the factories shall continue to be retained for soft
Response: Refer to policy GZ-
landscaping. There is a strong presumption against built development in the
olive grove due north of the industrial estate . Given that this site lies ODZ, its CMRC-6 as amended.
designation needs to be confirmed within the Structure Plan
review process. GZ-Xwkj-1
36
GZ-CMRC-11 Quarries Support in principle

There is a presumption against the granting of new hardstone and softstone
quarries, at least until the first review of the Minerals Subject Plan.
Requests for the extension of existing quarries shall be judged against policies in
the Structure Plan and the policies contained in the Minerals Subject Plan for
the Maltese Islands.
Quarries at Gharb MEPA’s authority is limited by Section 55
MEPA will carry out a review of the existing quarries at Gharb with a view to of the Development Planning Act.
identify measures intended to mitigate amenity impact. MEPA will also give Response: This is dealt with
favourable consideration to proposals for the rehabilitation of the quarries due
outside the Local Plan context.
north of Gharb. GZ-Ghrb-3
Quarries at Qala Support

Land around Qala will continue to be safeguarded for hardstone quarrying.
Applications for extensions to the quarry will be considered in the context of
the Minerals Subject Plan. Underground mining with access from the currently
active quarries may be considered favourably.
The northern boundary of the quarries shall be screened by means of vegetated
boulder mounds (maintained until the quarries are exhausted) so that the visual
impact of the quarries from sea craft navigating along this coast is minimized.
The jetty serving hardstone quarry G10 will continue to be used for the off-
loading of barges, however, this use should not impede managed pedestrian
access.
GZ-Qala-1
Preference shall be given to the exploitation of the existing mineral reserves

within the boundaries of the Quarry at Hondoq ir-Rummien GZ-Qala-4
Quarries at San Lawrenz Support

The rehabilitation of disused quarries through infill and subsequent conversion
to agriculture will be encouraged in the San Lawrenz area. There is to be a
general presumption against the lateral extension of quarries in this area, except
for extensions directed away from the Qawra/Dwejra Heritage Park area
37

for extensions directed away from the Qawra/Dwejra Heritage Park area
(provided that the extensions do not infringe upon other protected areas and
sites) and screened from long distance views into the site. All such extensions
shall be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. GZ-Slwz-4
GZ-CMRC-13 Tarmac & batching plants Major projects may warrant their own
There shall be a general presumption against the creation of new tarmac plants, plant.
batching plants or similar construction related plants on Gozo or Comino. Response: Yes but this would
be temporary and presumably
dismantled after operations
commence.
GZ-CMRC-14 Disused quarry restoration Support
Request for development permission to use disused quarries as depots for This policy could be superceded by the
construction waste may be considered. However, the acceptability or outcome of tenders for C&D Waste
otherwise of each proposal will depend on the environmental characteristics Management.
surrounding each quarry.
Response: There may be
Should a site be deemed acceptable for such purposes, the applicant has to
changes in the future (e.g.
submit proposals which indicate that the site will be sealed against contaminated
water infiltration, that measures will be taken to ensure that infiltration by exhausted sites, new
contaminated leachates will be prevented and that the site will be managed to requirements etc.) that may
ensure best practice of operations as well as to conform with the restoration of need to be catered for.
quarries provisions specified in the Minerals Subject Plan (or its subsequent
revisions). The developer will be required to deposit a bank guarantee prior to
the issue of the relative development permits, to secure compliance with permit
conditions.
GZ-CMRC-15 Fireworks Support

There shall also be a general presumption against the construction of new
fireworks factories unless the site lies in a permitted disturbed area (e.g. a
disused quarry) whereby any structures would be totally hidden from view.
Proposals for the provision of new and upgrading (including extensions) of
existing fireworks factories may be considered subject to a number of
environmental and safety conditions.
38
Strategy
TOURISM
Promote the rehabilitation of buildings for tourist accommodation
Establish entertainment priority zones
Set guidelines to upgrade open spaces
Control the appearance of non-traditional buildings
GZ-TRSM-1 Rehabilitation of buildings for tourist accommodation Support
MEPA will give favourable consideration to the sensitive conversion of
traditional urban houses of character (within Development Zones) with the
scope of accommodating tourism. In such cases, the basic planimetric features
and the facades should be as much as possible retained. The creation of back-
garden landscaping (including swimming pools) will also be encouraged except
on areas designated as ridge edge development .
GZ-TRSM-2 Rehabilitation of buildings for tourist accommodation Support

Requests for development permission to rehabilitate existing buildings and
structures Outside Development Zones (for tourism accommodation) may be
favourably considered provided that proposals comply with Development
Control Guidance: Development Outside Built-up Areas (PLP 20) or its
subsequent revisions but subject to policy GZ-AGRI-3.
GZ-TRSM-3 Entertainment Priority Areas Support

Parts of Xlendi, Marsalforn and Mgarr are to be designated as Entertainment
Priority Areas. Within these areas, MEPA shall give favourable consideration to
requests for development permission to non-residential facilities related to the
tourism and leisure industry, provided that other planning conditions on the
same areas are observed.
In the case of the Mgarr Harbour and part of Qbajjar and which currently lie
ODZ, need to be considered as Entertainment Priority Areas during the
Structure Plan Review process.
39
Zebbug Support
An area within the existing excavated area due north of building block at Triq
ix-Xwieni shall be developed within the context of an entertainment priority
area with a height not exceeding three (3) floors. This development should be a
high quality development which utilizes elements of the traditional Gozitan
coastal development. Public access between this development and the
foreshore should be maintained and a green wedge is being imposed. GZ-
Zbug-3
GZ-TRSM-4 External appearance of buildings Support

Favourable consideration will be given to planning proposals for the external
painting or rendering of existing non-traditional building facades (including back
elevations) in Marsalforn, Xlendi and the Mgarr Harbour area as Tourism
Priority Areas), in colours that approach a dark shade of terracotta. This policy
shall not be applicable to existing facades with a well-weathered franka stone
façade.
GZ-TRSM-5 Upgrading public spaces Support
MEPA shall give favourable consideration to proposals for development Funding & incentives
permission in Marsalforn, Xlendi and the Mgarr Harbour area which are (See above)
earmarked for the longer term upgrading of these urban spaces. Various
interventions are listed. Response: See previous
comments on this issue.
Strategy:
RECREATION
• Encourage the provision of informal recreation facilities in the countryside
• Consolidate urban facilities
• Encourage passive recreation facilities in inner areas, active facilities in outer urban areas
GZ-RECR-1 Informal rural recreation Support
Proposals to encourage informal rural recreation will be given favourable Funding & incentives
consideration subject to a range of environmental considerations relating to the (See above)
upgrading of existing features, pedestrian and vehicular segregation protection
of garrigue, boulder screes or other environmental sensitive areas, landscaping
and possibly the preparation of a detailed ecological impact assessments.
40

and possibly the preparation of a detailed ecological impact assessments.
Response: See previous
GZ-RECR-2 Swimming zones Support
MEPA will encourage the creation of swimming zones as well as the zoning of Implementation?
other marine related activities in order to minimize conflicts and increased
safety measures in heavily used bays.
MEPA shall also support the Malta Maritime Authority and the respective Local
Councils in the formulation of Marine Area Management Plans for these While it may be up to MEPA to zone such
localities. areas, how will the formulation of
management plans be encouraged and
what public consultation procedures will
be adopted?
comments on this issue. The
public consultation aspect is as
required by the DPA.
GZ-RECR-3 Walkways Support
The upgrading of various walkways is encouraged provided the walkways are It is presumed that the proposals put
circular routes wherever possible, a management programme is prepared and forward by MEPA are indicative only, and
submitted together with the planning application; and there is a strong are therefore subject to more detailed
justification for the creation of new pedestrian routes other than those selected proposals to be put forward by the private
by MEPA sector. Incentives and funding are a
problem.
Ghajnsielem Support
Applications by public entities to develop a pedestrian route through Incentives, funding & programme?
Ghajnsielem would be supported subject to a range of environmental conditions
and possibly an EIA and management plan GZ-Ghjn-3
41

GZ-RECR-4 Recreation areas
MEPA will encourage the rehabilitation of urban areas for public recreational The plan would benefit from a statement
purposes. These areas are to conform with policies GZ-URSP-1 as to who will implement, when, and the
The creation of new gardens or planted urban spaces on green areas is source of funding
preferred to the creation of playing fields within the Urban Conservation Areas. Response: See previous
The creation of new playing fields on green areas is preferred in the newer comments on this issue.
built-up areas
Sites that qualify for the development of belvederes are identified by MEPA
Ghajnsielem Support
The site between Triq il-Gudja and Triq Hamrim is reserved for a public garden
GZ-Ghjn-5
Gharb
The area due south-west of Triq Tumas Cassar is designated as a recreational
area (subject to the Structure Plan Review).
The area due north-west and south-east of the Gharb football ground is
safeguarded areas reserved for any eventual provision of informal rural
recreation. GZ-Ghrb-1
Munxar
An area currently ODZ is proposed to be included within the development
zone for a playing field GZ-Mnxr-1
Kercem
An area in the north east of the village is designated as a recreational area
(subject to the Structure Plan Review).
The area due east of the football ground shall be to cater for future
requirements related to informal rural recreational facilities. GZ-Kerc-1
The sensitive transformation of the nursery due west of Triq Kercem into a
public garden is supported by MEPA GZ-Kerc-2
The site at L-Ghadira ta’ Sarraflu will continue to be protected as a site
supporting a freshwater community. The area around the site is to be
promoted as an informal recreational site, which doubles as an educational site
through the introduction of sensitively designed and unobtrusive interpretation
panels. Limited car-parking facilities should also be provided nearby and the
42

panels. Limited car-parking facilities should also be provided nearby and the
design of this small car park should respect the sensitivity of the area.
Access to the water should be discouraged to reduce the likelihood of damage
to the fragile ecosystem. This may be achieve through the planting of species
which complement those thriving in the pond after approval of the
methodology, GZ-Kerc-3
Rabat – Rundle Gardens

MEPA supports public access to Rundle Gardens through sensitive interventions
which: attract pedestrian access from the surrounding areas, upgrade the hard-
landscaping features and create additional landscape architectural interest. GZ-
Rbat-5
San Lawrenz
The area at San Lawrenz due south-east of the existing primary school is
designated as a public recreational area. Additionally, a small parcel of land
ODZ touching Triq Nicholas Monsarrat and opposite Triq Dun S. Portelli is
proposed as an open-air formal recreational area GZ-Slwz-5
Sannat
Proposals for the upgrading of the sports and recreational
facilities at Sannat would be favourably considered GZ-Snat-1
Qala – geological and industrial heritage park Support
The coastal area to the north and north east of Qala is safeguarded for a Implementation, funding and programme?
geological and industrial heritage park that focuses on the geological and
geomorphological heritage of the area as well as the rich traces of a long
heritage of quarrying activity (utilizing different and evolvingtechniques) in the comments on this issue.
area. GZ-Qala-2
Qawra/Dwejra Heritage Park Support
Land designated as the Qawra/Dwejra Heritage Park will be afforded protection Timing?
as an Area of Ecological Importance, a Site of Scientific Importance, an Area of
Archaeological Importance and an Area of High Landscape Value. The area shall
be managed according to the provisions of clauses 15.34 to 15.40 of the comments on this issue.
Explanatory Memorandum of the Structure Plan and according to criteria of the
43

Explanatory Memorandum of the Structure Plan and according to criteria of the
World Conservation Union (IUCN) and as a candidate World Heritage Site.
MEPA proposes to establish a management committee to oversee the
formulation and implementation of a detailed Management Plan. GZ-Slwz-1
MEPA will favourably consider proposals to attenuate the negative

environmental impacts at Qawra and Dwejra. The erection of additional
boathouses or other permanent structures shall be prohibited in this area.
There shall also be a general presumption against the introduction of utility
services in this area. GZ-Slwz-2
Proposals to utilize it-Torri tal-Qawra as an Interpretation Centre for the

Heritage Park shall be given favourable consideration GZ-Slwz-3
Sannat – Ta’ Cenc Heritage Park Structure Plan Policy TOU10 refers, not
Ta’ Cenc shall be developed according to the provisions of Structure Plan Policy TOU6.
TOU 6. Response: Noted.
In determining applications for planning permission, MEPA will have regard to
safeguard the wealth of archaeological, ecological and scenic heritage found at
Overlooks the ToR of the EIA and the
the top of the plateau, the restriction of tourism related development on the
Heritage Park Management Plan that are
eastern flank of the promontory, encourage the upgrading of the existing
currently under preparation, and ignores
facilities near the hotel provided that development of tourism related or other
the fact that the land is in private
facilities are maintained at a minimum distance of 50m from the coastal cliffs and
ownership. The public does not have a
sufficiently away from the northern escarpment, provide free and unhindered
right to access.
coastal access and protect a pedestrian path running parallel to the northern
carriageway route which links the hotel to the Villa Area for free and Response: Legislation permits
unhindered public access, ensure that the overall height of the development MEPA to introduce planning
does not increase in the area closest to the northern escarpment or the coastal conditions in such instances for
cliffs, restrict development within 50m of the inland most tier of the coastal
cliffs anywhere along their length; and h) prohibit developments and/or activities environmental and amenity
that may negatively affect the colonies of breeding seabirds in the cliffs below reasons.
Ta’ Cenc. This includes both land-based and sea-based activities. GZ-Snat-2
Incentives?
44

GZ-RECR-5 Recreation facilities ODZ This does not take account of
MEPA encourages recreational facilities to be located within Development development within specifically identified
Zones. However, when sufficient evidence is provided to MEPA that the nature sites that are ODZ such as Ta’ Cenc.
of the development precludes it from being developed within Development Response: Such specific sites
Zones, degraded sites identified in Policy GZRLCN- 5 and which do not qualify
are indicated through specific
through policies GZAGRI- 1, GZ-RLCN-1, 2, 3 and 6, and GZ-COAS-1, may
be considered to this effect. In such cases, the scale of the development shall be policies.
limited to the smallest practicable scale and the project may require an
Environmental Impact Assessment.
In all the other areas, MEPA shall not permit: a) excavation; b) earthmoving; c)
levelling; d) assembly; e) building; of facilities related to recreation in Rural
Conservation Areas.
GZ-RECR-6 Recreation facilities ODZ See above

Proposals for new sports facilities will be within Development Zones. Response: As above.
In exceptional circumstances, upgrading or extensions to existing sports
facilities that already lie ODZ may be considered provided that the proponent
clearly demonstrates the need for the upgrading / extension. and a number of
environmental considerations
Ghasri – barracks at L-Gholja tal-Gurdan Support

MEPA seeks proposals from the Ghasri Local Council with Central Funding?
Government, for the reinstatement of the abandoned barracks at L-Gholja tal-
Gurdan to an appropriate use like the provision of research or educational
facilities. GZ-Ghsr-1 comments on this issue.
Coastal toilets Support

A site for toilets and showers is identified in the bay to the east of il-Qortin Implementation?
Isopo . GZ-Ndur-3
Gozo stadium Support
45

The land used for a racecourse is designated for the Gozo stadium. GZ-Xwkj-
2
MEPA shall favourably consider proposals to utilize the area enclosed by the Turfing implies an available water supply, a
Gozo Racecourse Track for other open-air sports activities. The area enclosed suitable grass and funds for maintenance.
by the racetrack shall preferably be turfed. GZ-Xwkj-3 See EIS for Verdala Golf & Country Club.
Response: Turf is not a

mandatory, but a desirable
requirement. Artificial turf may
be another option.
Considered to be outside BICC’s remit
AGRICULTURE
Strategy
CONSERVATION
• Protection of important urban open spaces, gardens, and sites that offer key strategic and local views is given priority
• Upgrading of the urban environment
• Contain urban areas
• Promote initiatives to improve quality of rural environment
• Follow a strategy of sustainable development
• Safeguard the natural and cultural heritage, including open landscape
GZ-URCO-1 Classification of UCAs according to quality Quality is very difficult to measure and
MEPA proposes to introduce a system of classification of UCAs according to a agree on. MEPA needs to conduct public
street hierarchy that takes into account the overall quality of the architecture, consultation exercise on this policy.
streetscapes and open spaces within the various sub-areas. The hierarchy Support if the guidelines / categorisation is
(abbreviated) is: clear. This could be developed into a tool
GRADE A: No changes to the facades or alignment that would actively encourage
rehabilitation. BICC would be willing to
GRADE B: Minor alterations to the facades
participate in the development of this
GRADE C: Significant alterations to the facades including demolition policy. It is keen to explore the possibility
Discretion to be used in the introduction of new materials. of more site-specific guidance on
If a building or feature is listed under the provisions of Structure Plan policy aesthetics, streetscape and design.
UCO 7 and has more onerous restrictions than those of the UCA hierarchy,
46

UCO 7 and has more onerous restrictions than those of the UCA hierarchy, Response: Noted. This exercise
the more restrictive provisions shall prevail.
has been completed for GCLP
refer to Maps 14.2-F to 14.15-F.
GZ-URCO-2 UCA quality areas Support if the clear guidance is

Various areas are designated as UCA quality areas. In such areas, the design, forthcoming. BICC would be willing to
materials, colours and textures employed on the facades are to be in keeping participate in the development of this
with the architectural elements which are found in the UCA. The existing policy
street alignment is to be maintained. Response: Noted.
In these areas, MEPA shall also encourage similar changes in existing dwellings
that have a façade which is incongruous with the rest of the UCA streetscape.
GZ-URCO-3 Existing street alignments in UCAs Support

The existing street alignments within UCAs shall be adopted. Proposals to
modify building alignments shall only be considered in exceptional circumstances
where demolition is the only feasible option to create or enhance a public
urban open space.
GZ-URCO-4 Visual Integrity Buffer Zones This policy seems to duplicate the intent of
New development in Visual Integrity Buffer Zones outside UCAs shall be the Strategic Gap Policy, albeit somewhat
restricted. Unless a UCA buffer zone has already been scheduled, a minimum more restrictive and onerous. The case
distance of 50 m. beyond the Development Zone boundary shall be adopted as for restricting built development is not
a Visual Integrity Buffer Zone. The policy context applicable to such areas shall convincing and could lead to considerable
be that related to rural conservation. In such areas, traditional cultivation and economic disbenefit to the land owners.
maintenance of existing rubble walls will be encouraged. However, requests for Response: The rationale is
new non-traditional rural development which may be legitimate in various ODZ
different. In this case, the idea
areas (eg. greenhouses, animal farms) shall be refused within the said 50m.
unless the area has been specifically designated as an Intensive Agriculture is to protect the UCA fringe
Zone. from visual clutter whereas in a
strategic open space gap the
idea is to discourage
coalescence of settlements.
47

GZ-URCO-5 Upgrading open space in UCAs It is not particularly likely that the private
Schemes to upgrade spaces within UCAs will be considered favourably if the sector would respond to this policy
main objective is to preserve and enhance all buildings, spaces, townscapes and without the requisite incentives.
landscapes which are of architectural or historical interest and generally to Response: See previous
safeguard areas of high environmental quality and to improve areas of low
quality; relevant local authorities and service providers have been consulted and
the project is supported by central government and the relevant local council;
The proposal should be shown to be viable in the long term, and include Implementation and identification of key
stakeholders need to be addressed.
interpretation and orientation facilities which do not compete for attention
with the salient UCA spatial and architectural features. A management plan Response: Noted.
should be submitted which shall include long-term proposals for maintenance
and a timetable for its implementation.
GZ-URCO-6 Replacement of balconies Support. See comment under General

MEPA will encourage the maintenance and repair of traditional stone balconies. Comments above.
The demolition and replacement of stone balconies is not normally permissible. Response: See previous
In cases where the relevant balcony is beyond reasonable repair, its comments on this issue.
replacement shall emulate the original design. The same materials and
construction techniques should be employed in the reconstruction. In cases
where the balcony is in danger of collapse, a detailed photographic survey
should be undertaken so that future reassembly or reconstruction is rendered
possible.
GZ-ARCO-1 Protection of archaeological sites Support

The scheduled archaeological sites and the identified candidate archaeological
sites in Gozo shall continue to be protected according to Structure Plan policies
ARC 2 to ARC 4. Safeguarded areas are also indicated for identified
archaeological sites. Until such time that the relevant area or site is scheduled,
requests for development permission shall be considered in the light of the This doesn’t provide the owner /
proposed scheduling. developer with any rights of redress.
Response: This is in line with
48

current scheduling system in
accordance with the
Development Planning Act
which has a level of inbuilt
redress.
Ras il-Wardija Support
The archaeological site at Ras il-Wardija is to be protected in view of its
considerable archaeological, ecological and scenic value. GZ-Slwz-6
GZ-ARCO-2 Interpretation of archaeological features This does not take account of the
MEPA will give favourable consideration to development which facilitates the development of heritage areas such as at
interpretation of an archaeological monument, provided that all the following Ta’ Cenc.
conditions are observed: Response: It does because this
a) the interpretation facilities should utilize existing built structures and accesses is a general policy that applies
which do not entail any addition of vertical or lateral extensions to the to all the local plan areas.
structures;
b) in areas ODZ, the general landscape context around the archaeological site
shall be retained (see condition c);
c) the removal of accretions from nearby buildings (in the case of archaeological
features within Development Zones) and the reinstatement of traditional rural
landscapes in the case of features ODZ, will be encouraged; and d) the
provision of new access to archaeological features shall not be permitted.
Ghajnsielem Support
Better interpretation of the archeological site at Borg il-Gharib and l-Imrejsbiet Incentives & funding?
GZ-Ghjn-6
: Rabat Heritage Management Plan Support

Cittadella Incentives & funding?
MEPA will encourage the production of a Heritage Management Plan to Response: See previous
safeguard the existing architectural, urban and cultural heritage within the
49

safeguard the existing architectural, urban and cultural heritage within the comments on this issue.
Cittadella, facilitate of interpretation, restore and use the sensitive
archaeological area due north of the Cathedral, promote access around the
panoramic pedestrian route atop the bastions, and discourage any interventions
which interfere with access to long distance views, provide a pedestrian route
immediately beneath the bastions, relocate the telecommunications antennae to
an area outside the Rabat UCA, discourage vehicular activity within and
immediately around the Cittadella; and identify opportunities for tourism
related infrastructure.
The Heritage Management Plan should also identify time frames for
implementation, lines of accountability, budgets, marketing, interpretation and
long term maintenance and upgrading programmes and the venture should be
financially viable in the long term. GZ-Rbat-1
Il-Borgo
A similar heritage management plan is proposed for il-Borgo. GZ-Rbat-2
Xahgra – Ggantija Support

The Ggantija Temple and its context shall continue to be given the requisite
protection, which reflects its scheduling and World Heritage Site status.
Development allowed between the temple precincts and the boundary of this
area shall be limited to traditional cultivation and maintenance of structures
such as rubble walls and other traditional agricultural features. The erection of
greenhouses, animal farms, cloches, wind pumps and other such modern
agricultural features shall not be permissible in this area. Special attention shall
also be given to new development which is proposed for the edge of the
Development Zone overlooking the Ggantija Area of Archaeological
Importance. GZ-Xghr-1
MEPA shall favourably consider proposals for visitation and interpretation

facilities linked with the Areas and Sites of Archaeological Importance in
Xaghra, provided that: the proposal shall be for the comprehensive intervention
of the area wherever possible, a detailed management plan giving evidence of
economic feasibility, time frame for implementation, budgeting, resources,
maintenance, and monitoring programmes and that the proposal is endorsed by
50

maintenance, and monitoring programmes and that the proposal is endorsed by
of all the relevant public agencies as well as that of the germane service
providers GZ-Xghr-2
GZ-RLCN-1 Areas of high landscape value Support

Various areas are identified to qualify for scheduling as areas of scientific
importance and areas of ecological importance.
In addition to all the minor islets, a number of other areas are to be designated
as Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLVs).
Apart from the normal restrictions on development in rural areas, there shall
be a strong presumption against the creation of new built structures (including
cultivation and animal husbandry related structures) in AHLVs. The guidance
provided in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Structure Plan clauses 15.34
to 15.40 shall also apply. The strategic guidance emerging from the Structure
Plan Review may include additional areas and shall introduce a hierarchy of
importance within the AHLVs.
GZ-RLCN-2 Designation of valleys Support

A number of valleys are to be designated as
CATEGORY A VALLEYS:
Category A Valleys shall be fully subject to the provisions of Structure Plan
policy RCO 29.
CATEGORY B VALLEYS:
Category B Valleys shall also be generally subject to the provisions of RCO 29
but some flexibility in terms of road upgrading, services upgrading, wind-pumps,
small stores (subject to policy GZ-AGRI-5), reservoirs and other limited
facilities which are deemed necessary for the continuation of traditional
agricultural practices, may be considered. In all such cases, special consideration
shall be given to mitigation measures so that the intervention blends well in the
rural landscape.
The strong presumption against the construction of new structures (including
greenhouses) shall be also applicable to Category B valleys.
51

Munxar – Wied il-Lunzjata/Wied ix-Xlendi Support
MEPA will encourage the Munxar Local Council, the Malta Tourism Authority
and relevant NGOs to devise a management plan for the Wied il-Lunzjata/Wied
ix-Xlendi valley system with a view to its rehabilitation, interpretation and
management. GZ-Mnxr-4
GZ-RLCN-3 Development on garrigue Support

There shall be a general presumption against any form of development
(including reclamation for cultivation purposes) on garrigue in Gozo or Comino
GZ-RLCN-4 Services through garrigue Support

There shall be a general presumption against the passage of services through
garrigue. In situations where the service providers tangibly demonstrates that
other options have been explored but found to be unacceptable from an
operational point of view, the creation of underground ducts to accommodate
such services may be considered. In such cases, the extent of the intervention
shall be limited in scale and extent to the least possible degree. Mitigation
measures shall also be adopted during the construction and operational phases
of the project (including access during construction and maintenance routines).
No construction debris shall be left on site after cessation of works and to this
effect, the deposition of an adequate bank guarantee shall be a condition of the
relevant development permission.
GZ-RLCN-5 Rehabilitation of damaged landscapes Implementation?

Various areas are indicated as candidate sites for rehabilitation of damaged Response: See previous
landscapes. Rehabilitation can also be integrated with the provisions of local
plan policies GZ-RECR-1, 2 and 3.
Nadur – Isopo Tower Support

The area around the Armed Forces site at Nadur is to be left free from
structures. The provision of limited access to the Isopu tower and to scenic
viewpoints along the edge of the plateau through a pedestrian path may only be
considered following a detailed and multi-seasonal ecological study of the entire
area to ascertain what the impacts of such interventions would be and whether
52

area to ascertain what the impacts of such interventions would be and whether
these can be mitigated and/or accommodated on site.
The restoration and use of the tower shall be such that the architecture of the
tower is respected and no structural accretions to the tower (except
documented ancillary structures, such as external stairs, that may no longer be
present today) or the construction of new structures in the vicinity shall be
permissible. The tower shall not be illuminated at night so as not to cause
environmental impacts on the avifauna of the area. Furthermore, the tower
shall not be provided with water, electricity and other services since the
provision of such services would cause an irreversible and unacceptable impact
on the unique garrigue of the area. The area should however be accessible to
the public, save for those instances where the Armed Forces are undertaking
target practice exercises, although the protection of the site shall take
precedence over the recreational use of the same area.
The provision of adequate management of the site, through a site management
agreement with an NGO or other organization, working under the supervision
of the national environment authorities, will be encouraged so as to ensure the
long-term protection and restoration of the important environmental features
of the plateau. GZ-Ndur-1
Nadur – disused quarry at Il-Qortin ta’ Isopu Use of disused quarries should not be
A public garden is proposed at the disused quarry at Il- Qortin ta’ Isopu. GZ- finalised until the C&D Waste Management
Ndur-2 Strategy is in place.
Response: Noted, but there are
severe environmental and
access constraints in the area
that operate against processing
C & D waste on this site.
GZ-RLCN-6 Afforestation projects Support
Various areas are considered as locations for afforestation projects, subject to
the findings of a study assessing the effect of such afforestation on the
environment of the area. Submissions for development permission shall include
details on the implementation of the project as well as its management. The
incorporation of features that help to attract wildlife as well as the re-creation
of the entire habitat (complete with understorey and undergrowth vegetation),
is particularly encouraged. Monocultures shall not be acceptable. Where
53

is particularly encouraged. Monocultures shall not be acceptable. Where
possible and appropriate, proposals for afforestation projects shall include
routes to channel the flow of pedestrian visitors through the area. These
afforested areas shall not be made accessible to vehicular traffic, although very
limited access to emergency vehicles will be considered on a case-by-case basis,
depending on the size and importance of the site as well as the proximity of
existing carriageways. Afforested areas created for public enjoyment are to
include fire-fighting stations and rubbish collection points at strategic locations.
Ghajnsielem - afforestation Support

The slopes under Fort Chambray are identified as priority sites for ecological Programming of implementation of this
afforestation projects. The interventions in these areas shall aim at recreating priority initiative?
typical Mediterranean habitats relevant to the area in question, complete with
the entire ecological habitat structure. The implementation and management of
these areas shall be vested in a Management Agency. GZ-Ghjn-13 comments on this issue.
GZ-COAS-1 Public Coastal Access MEPA cannot require public access over
The coastal area all around Gozo is to be designated to safeguard Public privately owned land. Much of the area
Coastal Access. The public is to have a right to free and unhindered access to designated in the plan is privately owned.
these areas. This right shall not however be interpreted as a right to the Perhaps priority should be given to the
provision of facilities to improve access. upgrading of existing country lanes, rights
of way, etc.
A Coastal Viewshed Protection Zone is also being indicated. Unless otherwise
specified in this policy document, development in these areas shall be restricted
to the maintenance of existing traditional coastal features with no lateral Response: The coastal strip
increase in built footprint or vertical increase in height of the built structures.
which denotes physical access
The relevant coastal areas may also be safeguarded for their ecological, natural
heritage or landscape importance as indicated through policy GZ-RLCN-1. is very limited. Policy is in line
with CZM 3 of the Structure
Plan. The main issue is not to
take land from private
ownership, but to secure
pedestrian access through such
areas. Some of the strips are
inaccessible and can only be
54

traversed with difficulty. Good
quality cultivated land has been
deliberately avoided.
Guidance also needs to be given to the
form of access (fencing, path materials etc)
and accident liability.
GZ-COAS-2 Sandy beach replenishment Support
MEPA will favourably consider projects aimed at replenishing existing sandy Incentives, funding & programme?
beaches in Gozo and Comino. All such projects shall be subject to a Why were Ramla Bay, and Mgarr ix-Xini
development permit application and to the findings of an environmental impact Bay left out?
assessment. All sand used in such projects shall be obtained from sources
approved by MEPA and the project shall be monitored throughout its Response: See previous
implementation phase and beyond. On Gozo, beach replenishment shall initially comments on this issue.
be considered only for Xlendi, Marsalforn, Qbajjar and Hondoq ir- Rummien
whereas on Comino, these shall be limited to San Niklaw Bay. The feasibility or
otherwise of projects in other bays shall only be determined following the
execution and monitoring of projects in the above-mentioned areas. Proposals
for the creation of sandy beaches where none existed shall not be accepted.
Hondoq ir-Rummien Support

MEPA seeks to upgrade beach facilities at Hondoq ir-Rummien to rehabilitate Implementation, funding & programme?
the damaged landscape, provide basic beach amenities, encourage unrestricted
public access to the beach; and design the built facilities in a manner that is
unobtrusive and complement the surrounding environment. GZ-Qala-3 comments on this issue.
Ramla Bay Support

MEPA encourages the preparation of a management plan that seeks to strive to Implementation, funding & programme?
protect the vulnerable habitats found in the area according to the levels of
protection afforded in scheduling, maintain and upgrade the area in a manner
compatible with MEPA policies, propose and implement facilities for comments on this issue.
interpretation of the area, indicate objectives, targets, time frames, lines of
accountability, budgets, baseline studies and monitoring programmes which shall
be made available to the public from time to time; and, propose detailed
measures for visitor management The management plan shall be subject to
terms of reference, approval and monitoring by MEPA. GZ-Xghr-3
55

terms of reference, approval and monitoring by MEPA. GZ-Xghr-3
Dive facilities at Marsalforn Support
The area immediately due west of the Development Zone at Qbajjar shall be
designated for diver support facilities. The structures shall be built up in a
timber kiosk like fashion. GZ-Zbug-4
GZ- COAS-3 Scheduling of sites Response: See previous

Pending their formal scheduling as Areas of Ecological Importance and/or Sites comments on this issue.
of Scientific Importance, all minor islets and rocks identified in the Plan shall be
afforded protection for their ecological, scientific, geological, geomorphological
and aesthetic value. All development on these islets and rocks is hereby strictly
prohibited and access to them shall be controlled and kept to the barest
minimum.
Fungus Rock shall continue to be protected as a Strict Nature Reserve and
access to it shall be governed by the provisions of LN 22 of 1992.
Comino Marine Conservation Area Support

The coastal waters around the entire island of Comino and its associated group MEPA to prepare the plans?
of islets are to be designated as a Marine Conservation Area (MCA). This
Response: MEPA is represented
designation is to be followed up with a detailed zoning and management plan
based on a scientific survey of the entire coastal area, to identify the outer through a Steering Committee
boundary of the MCA (which in the interim will extend to 200 m. from the on Comino which is already
shoreline), specific activities that re acceptable within the various zones as well operating.
as the management strategy for each. Pending the preparation of detailed policy
guidance on Marine Conservation Areas, the Marine Conservation Area
Management Plan for Comino will promote sustainable use of the area; regulate
diving activity in the waters around the island; regulate boating and yachting
activities, including anchoring, in order to ensure safety to swimmers and other
users of the area and safeguarding important benthic habitats, establish
swimming zones in the Blue Lagoon, San Niklaw and Santa Marija Bays, regulate
and rationalize maritime traffic, especially in the bays, regulate harvesting of
marine living resources, promote research on the marine environment, monitor
the quality of the marine environment; and establish an educational programme
centred on the Marine Conservation Area (MCA). GZ-Ghjn-12
56
Control of marine traffic & swimming zones around Comino Support

MEPA seeks to encourage the Malta Maritime Authority to undertake a more
efficient management of maritime traffic around Comino and in particular in the
Blue Lagoon area, so as to minimize conflicts between maritime activity and
other recreational uses in the area. Proposals to minimize clutter in these areas
of scenic beauty will be particularly encouraged so as to provide an improved
visual experience to visitors. In order to achieve this, MEPA will encourage the
establishment of swimming zones at the Blue Lagoon, il-Bajja ta’ San Niklaw and
il-Bajja ta’ Santa Marija. GZ-Ghjn-14
GZ-COMI-1 Scheduling of Comino See above

In view of its status as a Nature Reserve and pending its formal scheduling as an The Natural Protective Inventory needs to
Area of Ecological Importance and a Site of Scientific Importance, the entire be a public document in order for this
island of Comino, together with its associated minor islets, shall be afforded the policy to function.
same level of protection as scheduled property in line with the protective bands
Response: It is available on the
referred to in the Natural Protective Inventory.
MEPA Website but note that it
is always recommended to
contact MEPA’s respective
office for updates as scheduling
and listing may be added or
removed if required by MEPA.
GZ-COMI-2 Protection of Comino from urban development Support
In the light of the provisions of policy GZ-COMI-1 and in view of its status as a
Rural Conservation Area, Comino shall continue to be protected from urban
related development. Development interventions shall thus be limited to the
maintenance of natural habitats and essential infrastructural interventions
required for communication between Malta and Gozo. Any such interventions
must have regard to and cause the least disruption to the landscape, while
affected areas shall be reinstated. The direction given in the relevant GZ-UTIL
policies as well as policy GZ-RLCN-3 and 4, should thus be observed.
57

Comino clean up Support
MEPA will require the removal of clutter around the hotel at il-Bajja ta’ San
Niklaw and the tourist complex at il-Bajja ta’ Santa Marija as well as the general
rehabilitation of these areas. GZ-Ghjn-8
Comino – Il-Palazz Support

MEPA encourages the upgrading of the existing complex at Comino known as
“il-Palazz” provided that the main thrust of the structural interventions are
limited to the conservation and restoration of the building. The preferred use
of the complex shall include a research establishment or headquarters of a
national or international organization which effectively enhances its prestige
through the sensitive restoration of the building. The incorporation of an
educational/visitor centre on the environmental importance of Comino and its
associated islets, will also be encouraged.
The development of a visitor centre at ‘il-Forn’ shall be actively encouraged.
This centre shall provide interpretation facilities and information on the
ecosystems and various habitats of the island as well as its varied history. GZ-
Ghjn-9
The camping site at il-Bajja ta’ Santa Marija, Comino Support
The existing unofficial camping site at il-Bajja ta’ Santa Marija shall be
immediately closed down and this important site rehabilitated following detailed
scientific studies of the area.
An alternative site is safeguarded area for camping activities. These sites are to
be managed and provided with all basic amenities such as showers, toilets and
rubbish collection facilities. GZ-Ghjn-10
Pedestrian & vehicular routes on Comino Support

Consolidation of the existing routes on Comino through a method which
reduces surface wear but at the same time having a surface which resembles a
pedestrian country-path will be promoted. Limited inconspicuous signage (not
pole mounted) may be permitted at the route intersections. Artificial
illumination of the pedestrian and vehicular routes on Comino shall be
prohibited. GZ-Ghjn-11
58
GZ-COMI-3 Management Agency for Comino Support

MEPA will actively encourage the establishment of a Management Agency that Funding?
will be entrusted with the active management of the island and its surrounding
waters, in line with ecological and sustainable development principles that shall
be embodied in a management plan for the island. The Agency shall be set up as comments on this issue.
an autonomous organization reporting to the environmental regulatory
authorities. It shall also include representatives of the local inhabitants and the
major users on the island.
GZ-DARK-1 Dark sky Support

Various areas are to be designated as Dark Sky Heritage Areas. Where Duplication at GZ-UTIL-5?
relevant, reflective signs shall be employed to guide driving at night whilst the
Response: GZ-UTIL-5 relates to
installation of lighting which is not related to aerial or maritime navigation, shall
be strongly discouraged. luminaires.
59

Appendix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT GOZO AND COMINO LOCAL PLAN

Response: Comment appreciated.

• To continue to safeguard and enhance the unique cultural and natural

• To encourage development that:

o Creates wealth and opportunities

Response: In common with preceding planning documents, this is an

Response: To date, this implementation role remains outside the remit of

Response: To date, this implementation role remains outside the remit of

a) MEPA would be taking over government’s implementation role if the

c) One should not preclude certain concepts and proposals simply

Response: Unfortunately, it does not automatically follow, although it is

Timing of Structure Plan Review

Response: Fiscal measures and other incentives although supported are

Response: Height limitations are clearly indicated in the Building Height

Response: Changes to Schemes are addressed within the Development

Response: These issues are addressed by the Environmental Protection

Response: Another option is to introduce detailed guidance which specifies

Economic and Environmental Impact of Plan Proposals

POLICY SET 6: As soon as practicable after the commencement date of the

Response: Local Plans are not subject to strategic environmental

Response: Would appreciate BICC assistance on this aspect?

Environmentally Sustainable Development / Environmental Capacity

Response: These concepts are addressed in the GCLP Inception Report

Response: Environmental sensitivity of the island was taken into account to

Entertainment Priority Areas

Energy efficient buildings

Response: Comment noted. Policy GZ-UTIL-4 supports this approach.

Response: Although a relevant issue, this is outside the remit of the LP to

Response: To distance helicopter related facilities from the Gozo Capital

Rings roads & by-passes

Response: Agreed. There is a specific policy on this point in GZ-EDGE-4.

Response: This directly contradicts the point above. If there is a limit to

Response: This is a detail that needs to be addressed through other

Policy specific comments

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

Response: Changes to Schemes

The extension shown in Plan 2.14.3a

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-SETL-1 Containment of urban development Support

GZ-SETL-2 Gaps between settlements Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-SETL-4 Settlement hierarchies Support

GZ-URSP-1 Urban open space Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-EDGE-2 New buildings on Ridge Edge Development Support

GZ-EDGE-3 Structures in backyards (excluding ridge development areas) Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

Xlendi development Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-ENCL-1 Greenhouse areas Noted

GZ-RLST-1 Boundary adjustments Category 1 settlements (close to urban areas) Support

GZ-RLST-2 Boundary adjustments Category 2 settlements (large settlements Support

GZ-RLST-4 Boundary adjustments Category 3 settlements (small settlements Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-RLST-5 Farmhouses Support

GZ-RLST-6 New rural dwellings Support

GZ-RLST-7 New dwellings on Comino Support

GZ-HOUS-1 Residential Areas Support

Topic Policy Ref Policy BICC Comments

GZ-HOUS-2 Residential Priority Areas Support

GZ-HOUS-3 Housing Improvement Action Area: Rabat Support