ERA Report on the Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

PA 05277/96: To develop Ta' Ċenċ area into 's first 'Heritage park' and 'Multi - ownership tourist hotel development', at, Ta' Ċenċ , Ta' Ċenċ , Sannat,

1.0 Introduction

NB: It should be noted that this report is to be read in conjunction with previous EPD r eports /documentation on the EIA process and AA process, however ERA final position presented in this report supersedes any previous position on the same development application.

1.1 Description of the Proposed Development

The proposal was originally made in 1996 through an application for an outline developme nt permission submitted to the Planning Authority entitled To Develop Ta’ Ċenċ Area into Malta’s First ‘Heritage Park’ and ‘Multi - ownership Tourist Hotel Development’ (PA 05277/96). The applicant’s original proposal aimed to subdivide the Ta’ Ċenċ Are a into seven zones (Zones 1 – 7 as per Figure 0 - 6 in the 2015 EIS Coordinated Assessment) , and included the following components:

 The refurbishment and extension of the existing 5 - star Hotel Ta’ Ċ en ċ;  The development of a new 70 room 5 - star Sannat Hotel with underground parking facilities;  The construction of 36 villas and terraced dwellings located to the north of Hotel Ta’ Ċ en ċ in Tal - Gruwa, referred as North Development;  A Heritage Park and Protected Areas, occupying 60% of the site area;  The construct ion of an Interpretation Centre; and,  The construction of 38 - low rise villas overlooking M ġarr ix - Xini.

Following discussions, the proposal was then amended in 2015, with an amendment to the zoning regime as follows (Figure 0 - 8 in the 2015 EIA Coordinated Assessment refers):

 Zone A (Formerly Zone 1) – Hotel Area  Zone B (Formerly Zone 2, 3 and 6) – Protected Areas  Zone C (Formerly Zone 7) – Use to be determined  Zone D (Formerly Zone 4) – Villa Area  Zone E (Formerly Zone 5) – Kantra Beach

The EIS Addendum notes that the 2015 zoning regime presented above was adopted because specific parts of the Ta’ Ċenċ Area require d the design and adoption of particular management systems depending on the specific chara cteristics of each zone.

The currently proposed project consists in the construction of additional accommodation units and facilities in the environs of the existing hotel complex and fifteen (15) additional villas to the east of the site, in the vicinity of a grou p of existing detached villas. An interpretation centre is also proposed in the vicinity of the hotel complex, but encroaching onto currently open, undeveloped land . The main changes fr om the 2007 proposals discussed above are as follows:

(1) The 2007 EIS assessed a proposal for a new 3 - floor, plus basement, all - season 140 - bed luxury hotel (which was to be called Sannat Hotel) . This hotel was to be located to the SW of Hotel Ta’ Ċenċ and was planned to be the landmark building of th is new tourism complex in the hotel area. The Sannat Hotel is now being replaced in the 2015 amended plans by the

1 extension to Hotel Ta’ Ċenċ . This hotel extension is being designed to provide luxury suites and a presidential suite for up - market clients. (2) The zoning regime as proposed in 2007 was a ltered in the current proposals (Figures 0 - 7 and 0 - 8 refer) , as highlighted above. (3) The number of new villas in the Villa Area has been reduced from 36 to 15, with t he footprint of the villa area being reduced by circa 25%.

1.2 T imeline of events

Discussions on the development of the Ta’ Ċ en ċ area date back to 1993, following the approval of the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands and specifically its Policy TOU10 . 1 The development planning application submitted to develop Ta' Ċ en ċ area (PA 05277/96) into 'Malta's first Heritage P ark' and 'multi - ownership tourism development' was validated in October 1996. Following discussions with the Planning Authority o n the original plans (which included the development of a golf course), in January 2001, the Planning Authority requested the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with Category I, Schedule I of the former EIA Regulatio ns, 2001 . Terms of Reference for the EIS were communicated accordingly.

Following further discussions on the development, a revised proposal was submitted in January 2005. In accordance with these proposals, the first draft EIS was submitte d in November 2005. The EIS was reviewed and comments on this draft were forwarded by MEPA to the EIA Coordinator on 5 th April 2006. Responses to these comments were submitted to MEPA and following a revised proposal , a second draft EIS was presented to ME PA on 2 May 2007. The EIS was certified on 20 July 2007. The EPD Report on the EIA was finalised in October 2007 and was referred to the then MEPA ’s Planning Directorate, wh ich in turn finalised the DPAR for the proposed development, with a recommendation for refusal. In response to the DPAR, the applicant/architect indicated that a revised version of the plans would be submitted to MEPA in the light of the DPAR comments.

In June 2008, the architect communicated to MEPA stating that all the requested docum ents and information on the proposed development had been submitted. In August 2008, an official reply from MEPA informed the applicant that MEPA would be assessing the fresh plans submitted on the 3 rd July 2008, upon compliance with the following:

1. Submis sion of a covering letter that would make clear that the submissions are in response to the concluded DPAR; 2. The Master Plan should only make reference to 3 zones [i.e. (i) Hotel area; (ii) Heritage Park and incorporated protected areas; and (iii) remaining areas which are to retain the current

1 POLICY TOU 10: The area of Ta' Cenc, Gozo, from east of the Mgarr ix - Xini inlet to the village of Sannat, will be further studied as a potential demonstration project of high quality for both: 1. Malta's first national park, (World Conservation Union definition) covering the majority of the area 2. Malta's first multi ownership tourism hotel development, in the vicinity of the existing T a' Cenc hotel The national park will have a nature emphasis, including both the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and other heritage items, particularly archaeological remains; a limited amount of careful restocking with species of flo ra and fauna indigenous to the Maltese Islands; a visitor centre and interpretive facilities. The term `multi ownership tourism hotel' is described in Section 19. A major feature of both the hotel and the national park is that they will have professiona l m anagement acting on behalf of all owners, and which at Ta' Cenc will be a single management company responsible for both the park and the hotel. Further studies of this potential will require a particularly thorough assessment of on and off site impacts, i ncluding traffic, utility services, recreation, labour requirements, skills provision, materials supplies, as well as impacts on the natural and cultural heritage, and measures by which adverse impacts will be overcome. The height of buildings will be rest ricted to one and two storeys with the exception of traditional taller features such as stone built windmills, lookout towers, domes, and spires. The blending of the hotel into the landscape, and the use of the best traditional features which are character istic of Gozo, are of particular importance.

2 existing legal uses]. After each designation, reference should be mad e (in brackets) to the zones in the previous submission and EIA. Reference to Zone 4 as “Pending Court Decision” should be removed; and, 3. The interpretation centre should be included within the boundary of the hotel (Zone 1) as previously requested.

Furth er to the above, MEPA also requested an update to the EIS (in view of the new submissions), as well as an Appropriate Assessment with respect to protected species and habitats listed in the respective EU Directives for habitats and birds. The relevant Term s of Reference were referred to applicant on the 29 th September 2008.

In October 2008, the Ta’ Ċ en ċ area was designated as a Special Area of Conservation – Candidate Site of International Importance (INT 035. Ta’ Ċ en ċ Area) and Special Protection Area (SPA 010. Gozo Coastal Cliffs 4/4: Ta’ Ċ en ċ ) as per Government Notice 859 of 2008.

Following the request for the update to the Environmenta l Impact Statement (EIS) and the Appropriate Assessment (AA) in September 2008, no submission of studies or docum ents had been rece ived by the Directorate (other than occasional correspondence related to specialist consultants received from the EIA Coordinator). In this regard, a reminder was sent to the applicant in June 2011, with a deadline of thirty (30) days. In July 2011, the architect responded to this reminder informing MEP A that the EI S update was still ongoing. Following the expiry of this deadline, MEPA issued a final reminder on the 1 st August 2011, with an extended deadline of 15 th September 2011.

The final version of the update to the Environmental Impact Statement (in the form of an Addendum) and the Appropriate Assessment (AA) was received on the 9 th December 2015 and issued for a 30 - day public consultation. A public hearing was also held on the 22 nd February 2 016 at the Sannat Local Council (Appendix I to this report includes a copy of the public hearing minutes )

2. 0 T he 2015 update to the Environmental Impact Assessment

2.1 Overall conclusions

As discussed earlier in the report, the update to the EIS notes that the main changes to the proposal are the following:  T he footprint of the developable zones decrease d by circa 5ha ;  The b uilding height left uniformly low (when measured against ground level) ; and ,  T he density of the development in the Villa area decrease d substantially.

The EIA Coordinator thus concludes that the “levels of significance of the impacts on the environmental aspects identified would be lower under the current proposals than they would have been under the 2007 ones. This would mean that the findings presented in the 2007 EIS would still provide the decision - maker with sufficient information on the basis of which an informed decision would be made, when the development application in que stion is determined.” (EIS A ddendum, p. 37). In this regard, the EIA Coordinator concludes that the revisions to the proposed development do no present any changes to the significance of the environmental impacts as identifi ed by the original EIS.

However, in light of the changes to the proposal and the new designations of the Ta’ Ċenċ area as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Special Protection Area (SPA) and the corresponding need

3 for the carrying out of an Appropriate Assessment (as in dicated in Section 1 above), the assessments related to impacts on ecological resources and the landscape and visual impact assessment were revised and presented in the updated document, reflecting such changes.

2.2 Ecology

The 2015 update to t he EIS identified the following project actions that may lead to environmental impacts as follows:  Clearing of land, demolition of existing structures, followed by excavation of rock in the Hotel Area and Villa Area and construction of the proposed structu res;  Storage of excavated rock and soil and of possible contaminants;  Use of heavy machinery and heavy vehicles and attraction of higher volumes of vehicular traffic;  Site illumination;  Introduction of species to be used for landscaping; and,  Use of pestic ides and fertilisers for the maintenance of landscaped areas.

In light of the above, the following environmental impacts were identified:  Obliteration and degradation of biological communities through direct land take - up, storage of excavated material , po ssible leakages and leaching, and e ncroachment by vehicles ;  Effects of windblown and waterborne limestone dust and redistribution of particulates ;  Dis turbance arising from noise, vibrations and site illumination ; and,  Proliferation of ruderal and alien invasive species in the Ta’ Ċenċ SAC.

Details regarding the ecological impacts can be found in Chapter 1 of the EIS Update (Pgs. 39 – 80).

In terms of overall conclusions and mitigation measures, the EIA Coordinator notes the following conclusions by t he ecology consultants:

1. Impacts on flora and non - avian fauna : The consultants note that whilst the proposed development is likely to exert significant impacts on plant assemblages and possibly some fauna, especially sessile species with low motility, within the footprint (obliteration of habitats) and its immediate e nvirons (possible degradation), the magnitude of ecological impact on habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive is not expected to be significant in the Ta’ Ċenċ SAC as a whole. In this regard, the consultants conclude that, if properly contained and mitigated, the development is not expected to exert significant long - term effects on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site.

2. Impacts on avifauna : Whilst noting the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sit e in question, the consultants indicate that the development could potentially have significan t impacts on some species of avifauna within the SPA, in particular due to illumination, noise and other forms of disturbance th at may arise during construction and/or eventual operation of the development. The consultants suggest that the development works should be properly contained ; and recommend that mitigation measures are to be fully adopted and implemented, with particular attention made to the timing of the activities to ensure significant long - term effects on the SPA. In this regard, the consultants are therefore of the opinion that the development, if contained and mitigate d as recommended (including the adjustment of site boundaries in order to avoid sensitive receptors), is not expected to exert significant long - term effects on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site.

4 2.3 Landscape and visual amenity

The EIA Coordinator (vide Chapter 2 of the EIS Update) notes that the landscape of the Ta’ Ċenċ area can, in general, be considered to be i n a good to very good condition, primarily because the landscape is dominated by imposing landforms, such as sea cliffs and the escarpments have not been affected so much by human activities, even though the area is considered as an important tourist desti nation. The EIS Update also notes that the overall landscape experience and particular landscape elements have, over the years, declined substantially in quality , due to activities of bird hunters and trappers, the use of parts of the Ta’ Ċenċ area for the dumping of construction and demolition wast e, the abandonment of cultivated areas and the carrying out of modifications to some villas in the area which are incompatible with the context of the area.

In terms of landscape sensitivity, the EIS Update n otes that the Ta’ Ċenċ landscape should be considered as sensitive. During the construction phase, impact on landscape is expected to be significant and adverse, albeit temporary, particularly when plant/cranes are located on site. During the operational phase, the consultants conclude that impact on landscape sensitivity is to be of moderate to major significance, ranging from a positive to beneficial .

In terms of the visual amenity, the EIS Update provides the following conclusions (Viewpoints 1 – 13 in Chapter 2 of the EIS Update refer) :

 “ Impact on the Hotel Area and Terraces/Villa character areas in terms of visual amenity during construction – Adverse impact, with a moderate to high impact significance.  Impact on the Hotel Area and Interpretation site in terms of landscape and visual amenity during operation – Positi ve to beneficial impact, with a low to moderate impact significance.  Impact on the Terraces/Villas area in terms of landscape and visual amenity during operation – Positive impact, with a high to moderate significance that would decrease with time.  Impact on parts of the Ta’ Ċenċ Area that would not be developed in terms of landscape and visual amenity during operation – Beneficial impact, with a moderate to high significance. ”

3.0 The Appropriate Assessment process in terms of the Habitats Directive

As already indicated in the earlier sections of this report, the site proposed for development includes the entire area of both the Natura 2000 sites, viz :  MT 0000034 ( L - In ħ awi ta’ Ta’ Ċenċ ) , which is a Special Area of Conservation of International Importance designated under the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) for the habitat types and species which occur in the area ; and  MT 0000027 ( Rdumijiet ta’ G ħ awdex: Ta’ Ċenċ ) , which is a Spe cial Protection Area designated under the Bird Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) for its populations of C alonectris diomedia and Puffinus yelkouan , which breed on the cliff face, and other importance Annex I species which are known in the area.

Given that the full implications of the proposals on the integrity of the habitats and species of the protected sites were unclear, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in terms of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive was required to investigate whether the proposal would have a significant effect on the sites and their protected species. The first draft of the AA w as submitted i n December 2014, and following discussions with EPD, the final version of the report was submitted in December 2015.

5 In view of the fact that t he ecology section of the update to the EIS is base d on the AA study, the same conclusions discussed in Section 2.2 above apply. In t erms of overall conclusions, the consultants summarise the AA findings as follows:  Impacts on Annex I habitats and Annex II species of the Habitats Directive are not expected to be significant in the Ta’ Ċenċ SAC as a whole, as long as the development is properly contained and mitigated. In this regard, the consultants concluded that the development is not expected to exert significant long - term effects on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site ( this impact has also been highlighted in the update to the EIS).  In terms of the S PA and impacts on avifauna, the AA concludes that the development could p otentially have impacts of significance on some species of avifauna within the SPA, in particular due to illumination, noise and other forms of disturbance that may arise during construction and/or eventual operation of the development .

It should also be noted that , despite the indication in the report that a number of residual impacts are expected to pe rsist even if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented ( particularly in relation to disturbance to avifauna and habitat conversion ), the consultants conclude that the development, if contained and mitigated as recommended in the AA report, is not expected to exert significant long - term effects on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site.

4.0 E nvironmental assessment of the proposed development and ERA position

4.1 Overall concerns

As already highlighted in the former EPD reports dated 2007 and 2011, the proposed development in the Ta’ Ċenċ area would result in a significant intensification and extension of development within an area which is outside development zone , is highly sen sitive from an ecological and ornithological point of view, and is of high landscape value. In the ERA’s opinion, this w ould prejudice the landscape value of the area and will also affect the openness and remote character for which Ta’ Ċenċ is renowned.

4. 2 Impacts on avifauna

ERA would also like to reiterate its concern vis - à - vis the potential impact of the proposal on Annex I species of the Birds Directive. As discussed in the previous section, Ta’ Ċenċ supports the largest population of the Short - Toed Lark ( Calandrella brachydactyla ), an Annex I species under the Birds Directive which is associated with the plateau. The current distribution of this species is mostly limited to the open spaces within the Ta’ Ċenċ area and to a certain extent also to Zones A and D (former Zones 1 and 4). The Short - Toed Lark is already considered to be a species in decline, most likely due to human disturbance . A n intensification of development within the Ta’ Ċenċ area may lead to changes to the habitat of this Annex I species and therefore impact the species per se.

4. 3 Impacts on ecology

In terms of the impacts on ecology, the ERA has reservations on the position taken by the consultants that most impacts on flora, non - avian fauna and avifauna can be effectively minimised as long as the development is contained and mitigated as proposed. As indicated earlier, the proposed devel opment ( partic ularly : the extension to Hotel Ta’ Ċenċ both to the north and to the south of the present hotel; the development of an interpretation centre to the east of the hotel area; and the development of 15 villas to the east of the Ta’ Ċenċ plateau ) are expected to cumulatively result in a significant impact on the several aspects of the ecological mosaic within the

6 Ta’ Ċenċ area . Such impacts are expected to result from physical changes to the site environment, uptake of undeveloped land and habitat displacement, and miscellaneous environmental disturbances such as noise and light emissions , construction - phase impacts, and general “ edge effect s” (habitat degradation around the fringes of developed land parcels ) . ERA is also concerned about the combined effects of the various project components on the overall integrity of this protected area .

4. 3 Impacts on landscape character and visual amenity

As in the case of ecology, the ERA has reservation s vis - à - vis the assessment of impacts of the development on the landscape character and visual amenity of the Ta’ Ċenċ area. Whilst noting that the assessment was carried out in line with the appropriate methodolo gies , ERA does not agree with the conclusions in the EI S which indicat e that impacts would be of a significant adverse nature only during the construction phase of the proposed development. As already indicated earlier in this report , the proposal shall lead to further intensification of development within an area that is particularly sensitive from an ecological, geological, geo morphological, archaeological and landscape and visual point of view , and which is ultimately an important expanse of open and undeveloped countryside .

4. 4 Detailed considerations and ERA position

In addition to the abovementioned concerns, ERA has the following detailed considerations with respect to the proposed development:

1. Zoning regime: As was already highlighted in Section 1.2 above, the then MEPA had requested applicant to revise the zoning Master Plan to make reference to only 3 zones (the Hotel Area, the Heritage Park, including protected areas and the remaining areas which are to retain the current existing le gal uses). The 2015 Master Plan (Figure 0 - 8 in the EIA Addendum still includes five zones (Zones A – E), and therefore issue has not been adequately addressed. In this regard, ERA reiterates its objection to the proposed zoning.

2. The development of an Int erpretation Centre : As already highlighted in 2008 and 2011, ERA still has serious reservations on the location of the proposed interpretation centre. The then MEPA had already advised the applicant that this building had to be integrated within the bound ary of the hotel area (Zone A), in order to avoid further encroachment onto land outside the development zone. However, as can be seen in Figure 0 - 8, this building is still being proposed in Zone B (i.e. the Heritage Park area) , thereby failing to address the already - expressed EPD objection. This development per se is of significant environmental concern, and remain s objectionable in principle.

3. Extension to the Hotel : Whilst noting that the proposed extensions to the hotel are being proposed within the area designated as the Hotel Area (Zone A ) , ERA has concerns vis - à - vis the substantial intensification of such urban - type development, in an area which is not only located ODZ but also within a S pecial A rea of C onservation (SAC) and a S pecial P rotection A rea (SPA) . In ERA’s opinion, whilst noting that the hotel facilities may require upgrading, the intensification of such activities is of concern, particularly since there is no overriding justification for such interventions in terms of net environmental improvement , and in view of the disturbances to the habitats and species. In particular, the development to the south of the existing hotel will encroach on the currently existing rocky terrain (and its steppe/garrigue habitats), and will bring

7 the develop ment and its ancillary activities closer to the cliffs and their rupestral habitats .

4. The development of an additional 15 villas : Whilst noting that the revised 2015 proposal has indicated a decrease from the 36 villas propose d in 2007 , the development of the said villas still presents a net commitment of additional rural land ODZ to urban development, compared to the currently existing baseline. The area affected by such development is also designated as a Natura 2000 site as follows: MT 0000034 ( L - Inħawi ta’ Ta’ Ċenċ ), which is a Special Area of Conservation of International Importance designated under the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) for the habitat types and species which occur in the area; and MT 0000027 (Rdumijiet ta’ G ħawdex : Ta’ Ċenċ ), which is a Special Protection Area designated under the Bird Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) for its populations of Calonectris diomedia and Puffinus yelkouan , which breed on the cliff face, and other importance Annex I species which are known in the area. In this regard, the proposal is of significant environmental concern and is objectionable in principle.

Furthermore, following the review of the Appropriate Assessment report submitted in line with the requirements of the Habitats Directive, ERA is still of the opinion that significant adverse impacts on Annex I habitats and Annex II species cannot be exclud ed during all phases of the proposed development. In this regard, and since the proposed development cannot be considered to be of overriding public interest within the spirit of the aforementioned Directive and in line with Regulation 19(1) of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Regulati ons ( S.L. 549.64 ), transposing Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the proposal cannot be considered further from an AA point of view .

In this regard, ERA is objecting to the proposed development from an environment al point of view and is therefore recommending a refusal of the proposed development application.

8 Appendix I – Minutes of EIA Public Hearing held on 22 nd February 2016

EIA Public Consultation for EIS in relation to the following development permit application:

Meeting PA 05277/96: To develop Ta' Ċ en ċ area into Malta's first 'Heritage park' and 'Multi - ownership tourist hotel development'. Ta' Ċ en ċ , Ta' Ċ en ċ , Sannat, Gozo

Date 2 2 nd February 2016

Duration 17:00 – 18:00

Location Sannat Local Council, Sannat, Gozo

EPD representatives Perit Vincent Cassar (acting Director EPD); Charlene Smith (MEPA, EPD)

Charmaine Zerafa (MEPA, EPD) Minutes taken by

Perit Vincent Cassar opened the meeting providing details with respect to the proposed development currently subject to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (PA 05277/96; To develop T a' Ċ en ċ area into Malta's first 'Heritage park' and 'Multi - ownershi p tourist hotel development'. Ta' Ċ en ċ , Ta' Ċ en ċ , Sannat, Gozo).

Details vis - à - vis the purpose of the meeting were also provided, in particular that the meeting was being organized as a public consultation exercise part of the EIA process. It was also clarified that this was not the decision - taking meeting but was being held to present the findings of the EIS Addendum and to gather feedback from the public in due time for any relevant considerations to be factored in during the process.

Dr. Paul Gauci delivered a presentation explaining the studies carried out as part o f the EIS Addendum.

Perit Vincent Cassar opened the floor for comments after the presentation. ______

Mr. David Pisani ( Ż minijietna)

Mr. Pisani noted that this development was alr eady subject to a public hearing in connection to the villas being proposed in the area of M ġ arr ix - Xini; and at the time MEPA declared that the mentioned zone is not suitable for such development according to the Local Plans and Structure Plans.

One als o has to point out that the new SPED does not permit any developments on protected sites.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coordinator)

Dr. Gauci replied that the EIS document makes reference to the policies that are applicable for this development; however it is not within the scope of the EIS to interpret said policies and determine whether a

9 development is acceptable or otherwise. Said interpretations and decisions are within MEPA’s remit.

Ms. Maria Grazia Cassar (Din l - Art Ħ elwa) The below comments have been referred to MEPA by email on 19.02.2016 and read at the public hearing by Ms. Cassar as follows:

Din l - Art Ħ elwa is extremely co ncerned by the renewed proposal to build 15 villas on the plateau near M ġ arr ix - Xini at Ta’ Ċ en ċ in Gozo, as well as an interpretation centre and other structures outside the development zone. This proposal is completely unacceptable and should be thrown out by the Planning Authority. It goes directly against current planning policies which relate to this area.

The Gozo & Comino Local Plan (p.158) for this area notes that “a number of fundamental points have to be observed in the development of this area. These are aimed mainly to provide free and unhindered public access around the coastline, to limi t development in the lower part of the plateau (near M ġ arr ix - Xini) , to protect the wealth of archaeological, scenic and ecological heritage at the top of the plateau and to sensitively merge the resultant development with the surrounding landscape. Care should also be exercised in terms of restricting as much as possible the height limitation and to steer development away from the coastal cliffs and the southern escarpment.”

Din l - Art Ħ elwa is of the opinion that these fundamental points have not been ob served in the proposed development. In particular, it was clarified by government in a letter to the MEPA Board in 2006, by the Planning Minister who approved the Local Plans that this clause limits the development in the lower part of the plateau to the e xisting development, and does not allow further development in this area. Contrary to this, the proposal studied in this EIS will intensify development significantly in the lower part of the plateau (near M ġ arr ix - Xini).

The Rural Policy and Design Guida nce of 2014 does not contemplate the construction of new residences outside the development zones.

In 2006 a petition raised by Din l - Art Ħ elwa against proposed development at Ta’ Ċ en ċ was signed by 10,000 persons.

Despite the fact that the proposed nu mber of new villas has been decreased in number from 35 villas to 15 villas when compared to the 2005 plans, in fact the total footprint of proposed development of villas on the plateau has only been reduced by 25%.

Ta’ Ċ en ċ is an area of high landscape value and of high ecological sensitivity, and is included in the EU Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The proposed development will create unacceptable levels of disturbance to the site, including from ancillary development such as extensions to roa ds, and increased lighting and traffic.

The EIS Addendum makes continual reference to the Structure Plan policy TOU10 which is no longer in force. The Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), which has replaced the Structure Plan, makes no reference to TOU10. All TOU10 references should therefore be eliminated and replaced with references from the SPED where relevant. It is established that development applications are to be decided by the Board on laws and policies currently in force at the time that it was taking its decision on the application, and this should be reflected in the EIS as well as in the eventual DPA report by the Planning Authority. TOU10 is no longer in force.

Besides the Local Plan policy referred to above, further det ailed policies which refer specifically to the site are

10 those found in the Gozo and Comino Local Plan (GCLP); GZ - Snat - 2 are as follows:

In determining applications for planning permission, MEPA shall have regard to the following points: a) safeguard the wealth of archaeological, ecological and scenic heritage found at the top of the plateau from built development, trampling and tipping; b) restrict the tourism related development on the eastern flank of the promontory; c) encourage the upgrading of the existing facilities near the hotel provided that development of tourism related or other facilities are maintained at a minimum distance of 50m from the coastal cliffs and sufficiently away from the northern escarpment; d) safeguard the area indicated on MAP 13.6 for free and unhindered coastal access; e) protect a pedestrian path shown on MAP 14.11 - E running parallel to the northern carriageway route which links the hotel to the Villa Area for free and unhindered public access; f) ensure that the overal l height of the development does not increase in the area closest to the northern escarpment or the coastal cliffs; g) restrict development within 50m of the inland most tier of the coastal cliffs anywhere along their length; h) prohibit developments and /or activities that may negatively affect the colonies of breeding seabirds in the cliffs below Ta’ Ċenċ . This includes both land - based and sea - based activities.

A superimposition of Map 13.6 of the GCLP and the proposed masterplans show the Villa area marked in red to lie within the area which is clearly specified as Coastal Viewshed Protection Zone GZ - COAS - 1

Unless otherwise specified in this policy document, de velopment in these areas shall be restricted to the maintenance of existing traditional coastal features with no lateral increase in built footprint or vertical increase in height of the built structures. The relevant coastal areas may also be safeguarded for their ecological, natural heritage or landscape importance as indicated through policy GZ - RLCN - 1.

There is only one revised drawing submitted for the application PA 5277/96 which is a master plan. This does not clearly indicate the works involved and it is hard to appreciate the works described in the EIS addendum. No plan/s indicating existing and proposed layouts in the typical MEPA colours (Red and yellow) are available. In addition to this no sections through the site were submitted. The land forma tion here has steep contours so an understanding of level is of paramount importance to evaluate any submission. DLH requests that the necessary drawings are submitted should this application proceed. No plans showing proposed landscaping, access routes or lighting have been provided so it very hard to understand how this EIS addendum has arrived at its assumptions and conclusions.

The visuals submitted, especially viewpoints 2, 6, 8 and 9 show that the development has a negative visual impact from most of the angles and approaches to the site.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had written to MEPA in 2006 expressing concern on the impact of the proposed Ta’ Ċ en ċ development on the area overlooking . This area contains an important stretch o f pre - historic landscape. The Ta’ Ċ en ċ landscape was described as one that should be valued as a depository of

11 the country’s cultural heritage. In 2008 the Superintendence called for a total ban on the Ta’ Ċ en ċ development and asked MEPA to schedule th e entire Ta’ Ċ en ċ area, a measure which would preclude any development in the sensitive stretch of land, including the villas at Tal - Gruwa and at M ġ arr ix - Xini.

The EIS Addendum notes that the landscape value at Ta’ Ċ en ċ as being of high landscape va lue. as follows:

2.3.1 The value of the landscape at Ta’ Ċ en ċ is considered as being high. This is due to several factors including the following:

The presence of several unique individual features which merit protection, such as rare species of flora and fauna; the presence of spectacular land forms; the SAC and SPA status assigned to the area; the presence of unique archaeological features; the scenic quality of the site and surrounding areas; the overlap of all of the above features and qualities in one single area; the irreplaceability of the landscape; the views that can be enjoyed from the area, particularly the ones to the south and e ast; and the fact that there is substantial potential for enhancement of features, which have degraded over the years and the restoration of the landscape.

The new Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) of 2015, which has now replaced the Structure Plan, states that that the location of new residences should be guided within urban areas, and that rural areas must not be “exploited by uses which are not legitimate or necessary”. Granting permission to build private villas at Ta’ Ċ en ċ w ould continue the relentless destruction of the countryside.

The SPED clearly states that further land take - up in rural areas should be considered as a last resort and only “where it is essential for the achievement of sustainable development.” There is a bsolutely nothing sustainable about building more ODZ villas on the Ta’ Ċ en ċ peninsula.

The whole area inclusive of the hotel site was designated as Natura 2000 site Rdumijiet ta’ G ħ awdex, Ta’ Ċ en ċ by GN 859/08. The has been classified as a Natura 200 0 site both for the habitat, Special area of Conservation (SAC) and the birds directives site as a Special Protection Area (SPA) . The sensitivity of the site would require in depth studies due to the increase in light pollution, noise pollution and possib le pathways disturbing habitats and bird colonies. The introduction of new species in the landscaping would also need to be assessed. The EIS addendum states that as the hotel extends seawards it would encroach on part of the habitat of the Thermo - Mediter ranean Coronilla garrigue.

The Draft Natura 2000 Management Plan for the SAC/SPA at Ta’ Ċ en ċ (Rdumijiet u l - In ħ awi ta’ Ta’ Ċ en ċ ) notes that “Further development in the SAC can have a number of impacts on the site, especially if not restricted to distu rbed areas and if located close to important habitat types: important factors are destruction and/or

12 fragmentation of habitats, impacts on adjacent habitats from construction activity, and disturbance of wildlife.”

The draft Management Plan also notes tha t “In case parts of the site are further developed for the purpose of the construction of villas, additional infrastructure might be needed as well. This could result in impacts such as destruction and/or fragmentation of habitats, impacts from constructio n activity (including dust, littering, trampling, noise and vibrations), and disturbance of wildlife.” The cumulative impact of any further development on this site therefore also needs to be evaluated in this proposal.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coordinator)

D r. Gauci pointed out that references to the Structure Plan Policy TOU 10 were made due to the fact that the Local Plan is an interpretation of the Structure Plan. It was also made clear in the EIA Addendum that the Structure Plan has now been replaced by t he SPED.

Ms. Astrid Vella (Flimkien g ħ all - Ambjent A ħ jar)

Ms. Vella noted that Flimkien g ħ all - Ambjent A ħ jar agrees with the comments put forward by Din l - Art Ħ elwa. One must point out that during other similar hearing, MEPA did not accept references done to the Structure Plan and requested that references are done to the new SPED. It is of utmost importance that MEPA is consistent.

Ms. Simone Mizzi (Din l - Art Ħ elwa)

Din l - Art Ħ elwa would like to point out that the SPED document is not adequate and does not encompass the purposes of the Local Plans. Ms. Mizzi also made queries in relation with the reference to the application title - the application refers to a multi ownership tourism complex and asked whether details could be provided to which area this actually refers to and what exactly is being meant ‘multi ownership tourism complex’.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coordinator)

Dr. Gauci noted that the Structure Plan, mainly Chapter 19, explains the concept of multi - ownership. One has to note that multi - ownership is not timeshare; but it refers to a property privately owned and used for a specific time yearly and is managed by the developer/hotel for the remaining peri od. It is a profit sharing concept. At the time such type of development was encouraged by the Structure Plan.

Mr. Nicholas Barbara (Birdlife Malta)

In the EIS, there is not sufficient detail with regards to the area identified as Bird Sanctuary and Spec ial Area of Conservation/Special Protected Area and to the distance of the development from such areas.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coordinator)

Details regarding the Bird Sanctuary and the Special Area of Conservation are included in the original EIS of 2007. The ornithologist of that time commented and made pressures with regards to the impact of the lighting on the birds and for this reason it w as agreed that the distance of the development from the cliffs is increased from 50 meters to approximately 120 meters. For this same reason, the height of the hotel was also reduced to one floor.

13 Mr. Nicholas Barbara (Birdlife Malta)

Birdlife also enqui red whether the development overlaps with the the Bird Sanctuary boundaries.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coordinator)

Dr. Gauci confirmed that the entire hotel is a Bird Sanctuary.

Mr. Alex Vella (Ramblers’ Association Malta)

Mr. Vella noted that as far as the y were aware of, MEPA issued a set of regulations with regards to photomontages (visual impact assessments) e.g. distances, viewpoints etc. and enquired whether the photomontages taken for this development are subject to such regulations.

Dr. Paul Gauci ( EIA coordinator)

Said regulations did not apply for this development being that they were issued by MEPA only some time ago; when the studies were already been completed.

Mr. Alex Vella (Ramblers’ Association Malta)

Mr. Vella confirmed that for this rea son, a revision of the EIS should be requested and the photomontages updated accordingly.

We would also like to enquire out whether the EIS took into consideration whether the existing villas are currently inhabited permanently.

Dr. Paul Gauci (EIA Coord inator)

Dr. Gauci stated that the issue whether the existing villas are inhabited is a planning issue and is not within the scope of the EIA.

Mr. Alex Vella (Ramblers’ Association Malta)

From the information that we have it seems that the existing villa s are only used for a couple of months a year and thus this raises questions with regards to the necessity of such development.

Ms. Astrid Vella (Flimkien g ħ all - Ambjent A ħ jar) One has to consider whether the villas are actually needed and therefore whether the development is justifiable, especially it being proposed on an Outside Development Zone.

Perit Cassar closed the meeting by confirming that the points raised have been re corded and noted. He also thanked the participants and invited them to send any further comments, preferably by email to [email protected] , or by post to ‘The Director, Environment Protection Directorate, MEPA Head Offices, th St Francis Ravelin, ’ , by 29 February 2016.

14