The Planning Authority has approved an application to rezone a 41,370sqm site in Mosta for residential development.

The site is reportedly the second largest parcel of land included within the development zone in the controversial ‘rationalisation’ exercise in 2006.

The application (PC/21/19) is the second for the site, after an earlier one (PC/39/09) was refused in 2017.

The current application, which seeks to establish zoning, building heights and road alignments, was recommended for approval by the PA’s case officer.

Following today’s vote, the 22 different landowners can now submit development applications.

During the meeting of the Planning Authority’s Executive Council on Tuesday afternoon, several attendees raised their concerns.

Perit Carmel Cacopardo, on behalf of objectors, argued that inclusion within the development zone in 2006 does not give an automatic right to development.

He said there’s always two sides to any argument about what constitutes good urban design, with the interest of landowners clashing with those of nearby residents.

“In my opinion, the application does not address residents’ concerns.”

He criticised the case officer’s report for making short shrift of a suggestion to leave the area as a public open space.

“That it is not in the interest of the landowners is no reason to dismiss having it as a public open space,” he said, calling for a rationale for the site’s development based on planning principles.

He also pointed out that the Code of Police Laws Chapter 10 Section 136 states that “No cemetery shall be constructed at a distance less than 183m from any house intended for habitation.”

However, PA Executive Chairman Johann Buttigieg clarified that the law mentions the 183m distance when creating a new cemetery, not when building near a cemetery.

“I understand that everyone wants green areas to remain green, but Parliament included this area in the development zone. Parliament also added the condition that sites over 5,000sqm include at least 15 per cent open space. If it wanted to give a different direction, it would have done so.”