Polidano wants PA to know illegal Montekristo is 'reminiscent of royal palaces'

The developer Charles Polidano, whose construction illegalities include the massive sprawl of piecemeal development at the Montekristo winery and zoo in Siggiewi, has compared the illicit construction to the historic castles erected by ‘royals and nobles’.

Polidano’s justification for his construction of an events venue and zoo in an area which was completely agricultural in 1998, was included in a recently-presented document assessing the environmental impact of the mostly illegal development.

In a linguistic soup designed to mollify readers, Polidano claims the silver lining of the illegal yet operational events venue, is an “architecture… reminiscent of palaces and other buildings built by royalty and nobility. Certain structures can be considered as ‘garden follies” and compare very well to other historic garden installations both in Malta and overseas.”

The Montekristo Winery and Vineyards commenced operations in 2005, through the approved redevelopment of an existing pig farm. Two years later, Polidano was issued with a permit for his winery for “tourist attractions”. But between 2008 and 2012 the development started extending in to the surrounding area.

The magnate still has two pending applications with the Planning Authority to regularise his illegal development: one from 2009 to regularise an illegal extension to the winery and bottling plant, which includes the gate and entrance foyer, the passageways and car parks, and an entire fairs and exhibition area; and from 2010 to sanction a “family park” which includes a zoo, equestrian facilities and a museum. The 2009 application further includes a request for a 380sq.m extension to the winery to make room for more commercial development.

Montekristo multipurpose hall

‘Reminiscent of royalty’

14 years down the line, the two applications are yet to be approved by the Planning Authority.

On its part, the Environment and Resources Authority is still screening the application and has asked Polidano to submit a project description statement on the basis of which it has to decide whether more environmental impact studies are required before a final decision is taken.

The PDS, authored by ADI Consultants, offers a realistic picture of the situation by not shying away in documenting the take -up of agricultural land and other environmental problems resulting from the project. But the document also includes a “rationale” of the project provided by the developer.

In this Polidano claims “the architecture of the structures erected is reminiscent of palaces and other buildings built by royalty and nobility” and that some of the structures can be considered as ‘garden follies’ which “compare very well to other historic garden installations both in Malta and overseas”.

The inclusion of his “exotic and farm animals” is billed as “kepping in tradition” with the menageries once kept at San Anton Gardens and at the Dragonara, the latter a private estate of the Marquis Scicluna.

Polidano also takes pride in building these structures “on a terrain that was already disturbed”,  by utilising traditional techniques and materials: “An opportunity was provided to artisans over the last ten years to produce architectural elements, and for master masons to erect buildings of monumental stature. In doing so lost traditions were revived.”

And to add another touch to what he calls a “unique concept”, Polidano says Montekristo’s olive groves, vineyards, extensive orchards and pristinely restored arable land” is based on the “good mediterranean living theme”: “The visitor is given the opportunity to feast on produce on the estates. This can include preserved fruits and vegetables, cured meats, dairy products and traditional festive sweets”.

Polidano also takes pride in the the collection housed in a museum located in the family park of items related to “transport, folklore and popular engineering” which he says also form part of the Maltese national minimum curriculum for students.

Montekristo animal park

Massive take-up of ODZ land

But the two project statements presented in the two separate bids to sanction the zoo and the winery area also document the massive take-up of agricultural land which made way for new buildings, paved and landscaped areas and parking facilities.

These include 45,379 sq.m of agricultural land lost to make way for the illegal family park and zoo area, and 36,680 sq.m of agricultural land for the sprawling development around the winery. This adds up to the loss of a staggering 82,059 sq.m of land. Existing buildings on the site – excluding hard-surfaced areas – cover a footprint of approximately 6,947 sq.m.

The PDS includes a series of aerial images taken between 1998 and 2018 which show “a considerable expansion of the built-up area on the site from what was approved in separate permits approved in 2004 and 2006 permits.”

The most intensive period in the development of the area took place between 2008 and 2012 with photographic evidence showing the clearance of the fields to the southwest and southeast of Polidano’s bottling plant, and the creation of pathways. An aerial image taken in 2012 also shows the development of an illegal car park serving the Montekristo Estate. Further clearing and hard surfacing of the areas to the south of the bottling plant took place between 2016 and 2018.

The development served to urbanise and formalise what was previously a rural landscape.  “The traditional rural character of the site has essentially been lost and the current development has had an impact on the Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV),” consultants ADI said.

Moreover, the proposed 380sq.m extension to the winery, although “relatively small by comparison with the development that has already occurred on the site”, will only serve to further urbanise the site “by increasing the number of restaurants and bars and adding new retail facilities.”

The report refers to the negative ecological impact of development carried out in the northern and western portion of the site which lies within an Area of Ecological Importance (AEI) and Site of Scientific Interest (SSI).

The PDS also refers to the archaeological sensitivity of the area around the Montekristo Estate noting that archaeological features have been recently unearthed during works within the Malta International Airport complex, in close vicinity to the site. While noting that the applicant “has explained that no archaeological features were unearthed during the expansion of the development on the site” the report still states that “it is possible that unrecorded cultural heritage artefacts were lost during this development”.

The PDS also includes Polidano’s take on the “evolution” of the project. Admitting that Montekristo “was developed piecemeal over several years”, he notes after removal of several derelict structures and a quarry, the stone recycled or recovered, and the vineyards were planted on material recovered from the old Luqa landfill.

Montekristo agricultural fields before

Mitigation measures

In a bid to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project Polidano has expressed his intention to resurface the large hard-stand area in front of the winery and bottling plant, as well as the extensive car park, using permeable material, to facilitate groundwater recharge.

ADI have also proposed that in view of the loss of agricultural land, Polidano should consider “converting disturbed land in his ownership within or adjacent to the Montekristo Estate (such as the quarry-like area to the north), or by proxy elsewhere on the island, to agriculture.”

Tigers and lions

Polidano presented an inventory of the animals living in the zoo which is presently not open for the public.

These include a number of endangered species whose trade is prohibited except in exceptional circumstances. These include 10 tigers, four lions, three pumas, two miniature donkeys, one yellow-crested cockatoo, and two ostriches.

The report refers to the most recent statement from the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Regulation Department of November 2019, which following said the enclosures for the animals “respect the minimal animal welfare standards”.

The consultants are recommending that the animal park should have strict opening and closing times guided by animal welfare requirements, and a ban on any activities within the animal park, or its ancillary facilities, outside of these hours.