Despite archaeological find, Gudja home for the elderly set for approval

An old people's home comprising 54 rooms set over 3,000 square metres of agricultural land, and partly located outside development zones, is set to be approved in Gudja.

As happened in the case of a controversial approval of Mistra's high-rise apartments, MEPA's planning directorate is recommending the approval of this development because it is already covered by an outline permit issued in 2009.

A final decision on this application is expected on Thursday 21 November.

Most controversially, no environmental impact assessment (EIA) was ever conducted on the site, but the case officer's report reveals that "archeologically sensitive areas" surround the site and that a possibility exists for further remains to be uncovered. Despite this information, the project was still exempted from an EIA.

The case officer now recommends clearance from the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage before works commence.

The two-storey development is set to include a chapel and other facilities, including living and dining areas. 26 parking spaces will be located at basement level.

The site lies in areas known as Ta' Gluba, which lies in very close proximity to rock-cut tombs at Tal-Millieri. Most of the site is covered by agricultural land and includes one dwelling unit, which is proposed for demolition.

The outline permit for this development was issued in April 2009. The application was originally refused in July 2008, but the decision was overturned a year later by the defunct Development Control Commission, despite the case officer's insistence that the development should be refused.

Present MEPA deputy chairman Elisabeth Ellul had voted against this development, alongside DCC member Peter Axisa.

In order to justify their approval, the planning directorate insisted that the area to be built outside the development zone was in effect compensated by open gaps within that part of the site, corresponding to the Category 1 Settlement. According to the case officer's report, one-fourth of the site is located in a Category 1 Settlement where two-storey residential development is allowed; while the rest of the site is classified as a Strategic Open Gap, where no development except afforestation is allowed. Moreover the site is categorized as an Area of Agricultural Value.

Curiously, an application to construct two dwellings to replace the existing dwelling had been twice refused in 1994.