Għarb elderly home recommended for approval despite objections

According to Times of Malta, application PA/2994/24 includes the main building, two basement levels for parking, and a 70-metre underground driveway cut into outside-development-zone land. That split sits at the centre of the recommendation. The case officer argued that the elderly home itself would be within the development boundary, while the vehicular entrance and ramp alone would extend into ODZ land.

The report says access from Triq l-Isqof Mikiel Molina is constrained by a narrow frontage and alley, and treats access from Triq il-Blata as the more practical option. Proposed landscaping, the officer said, would help reduce the visual impact.

ERA objected to interventions outside the development boundary and raised wider concerns about what it described as an urban-type land use in an area characterised by agricultural fields. “The proposal would result in take-up of open rural land for the purpose of introduction of an urban-type land use on a site which is characterised by arable fields,” the watchdog said, according to the report cited by Times of Malta. ERA added that the development would have an adverse impact on the rural landscape and said an environmental impact assessment and project description statement “would not resolve [its] objection”.

The Agricultural Advisory Committee had also objected to this and any project not in line with rural design guidelines, Times of Malta reported.

Residents quoted by the newspaper argued that the scale of the building is incompatible with the old quarter of Għarb. David Pace said the project was “completely inappropriate” for an area of narrow streets, while Debbi Debono questioned whether the unnamed case officer had exercised proper due diligence before recommending approval. Maurizio Cappello said the concerns, taken together, meant the building should not go ahead.

This is not the first elderly home application in the area. Times of Malta reported that an application filed in 1994 was rejected in 1996, with that decision confirmed on appeal in 2001. Another application presented in 2008 was withdrawn 10 years later, and one filed in 2022 was also withdrawn.

The current recommendation rests on a narrow but important distinction: the officer says the home belongs inside the development boundary, while the part cutting into ODZ land is the access built to serve it.