A garrigue site, 60 villas and an offset 5 km away
A 4.2-hectare garrigue site on the edge of a village is proposed for 60 villas, a pool and an access road. Surveys record 14 species of orchid, a population of the endemic Maltese rock-centaury nearby, and a stone wall used by lizards. The site is outside the Natura 2000 boundary but within 300 m of a Special Area of Conservation. The developer argues that because the site is not formally protected, an EIA is not required, and offers to create a 1-hectare 'offset' by seeding arable land 5 km away. The local planning authority must decide on screening and conditions. The village has a housing shortage, and the site is within walking distance of services.
1. Is the developer correct that no EIA is needed because the site is not formally protected? Explain the screening logic.
Read the worked answer
No. Formal designation is not the only trigger for environmental impact assessment. Screening should consider:
- Sensitivity: the presence of 14 orchid species, an endemic plant nearby and a lizard wall indicates high ecological value.
- Location: within 300 m of a Special Area of Conservation means an appropriate assessment may be needed if the project is likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, alone or in combination with other plans.
- Scale and type: 60 villas, a pool and a road involve land take, lighting, noise, dust, traffic and recreational pressure - not a trivial development.
- Cumulative effects: incremental loss of garrigue around a village can matter more than the 4.2 ha in isolation.
- Precautionary principle: uncertainty about hydrology and species use should not be resolved in the developer's favour.
The correct conclusion is that the project should be screened formally, and in this case is likely to require an EIA and a Natura 2000 appropriate assessment, even though the site itself is outside the boundary.
2. Apply the mitigation hierarchy to the proposal and critique the proposed offset.
Read the worked answer
Mitigation hierarchy
- Avoid: the first question is whether the villas can go elsewhere or the footprint be reduced to avoid the orchid-rich area and the lizard wall. If avoidance is not demonstrated, the hierarchy has not been applied.
- Minimise: layout, retaining walls, dark-sky lighting, construction timing outside flowering, dust and runoff controls.
- Restore: reinstate any temporary works and manage the remaining garrigue.
- Offset: only for residual, unavoidable impacts.
Critique of the offset
- Like-for-like: garrigue is slow-forming, with thin soils and specific hydrology; seeding arable land 5 km away is not equivalent habitat.
- Ratio: 1 ha for 4.2 ha is less than 1:1, far below the precautionary ratios normally expected for high-value habitat.
- Connectivity: an offset 5 km away does not maintain the local ecological network or the rock-centaury population.
- Additionality and permanence: there is no evidence the land is not already arable or that management will continue.
The offset should not be accepted as a substitute for avoidance.
3. Recommend a decision with conditions, taking the housing need into account.
Read the worked answer
Housing need is a legitimate consideration, but it does not override the mitigation hierarchy. A defensible decision is:
Refuse the current layout, or approve only a reduced scheme that avoids the core orchid area and retains the stone wall and a buffer from the SAC. If approval is granted, conditions should include:
- an ecological clerk of works and a pre-construction survey;
- a layout with no lighting spill into the garrigue and a managed buffer;
- construction management for dust, runoff and invasive species;
- a long-term management plan for the retained habitat, funded and bonded;
- offset only for genuine residual impact, at a ratio of at least 3:1, on land adjacent or connected, with a 10-year management agreement and monitoring;
- annual reporting on orchid and lizard populations.
The judgement is that the housing shortage may justify some development on the least sensitive part, but not the full 60-villa scheme as proposed. The authority should state explicitly which impact is avoided, which is minimised and which is residual.