Ramblers applaud MEPA refusal of Portomaso extension

MALTA TODAY

National Friday 27 April 2012 - 15:50

Ramblers applaud MEPA refusal of Portomaso extension

Ramblers Association of Malta ‘pleased’ that Portomaso Extension application was rejected by the MEPA board.

• Share on print
• Share on email
• More Sharing ServicesShare this

The Ramblers Association has welcomed the refusal by the MEPA board of an extension project at Portomaso, but qualified its statement by saying it was "not so pleased" that the board was divided on the issue.

"The decision should been crystal clear. The original permit for the Portomaso buildings stated that no further development could be carried out in this area.  Apart from the other reasons militating against approval of this application, this condition alone should have been enough for this application to be thrown out, without MEPA wasting its time, and everyone else's, in considering and evaluating this spurious application," the Ramblers said.

"It is therefore surprising that half the MEPA board members actually voted in favour of this development.  It seems that the recent cultural change in favour of more sustainable development has not permeated to all the board members. Those who voted 'yes' are apparently still in favour of the maxim: 'If there is an open space, let's build it'."

The Ramblers also noted that Labour's representative on the board Roderick Galdes was one of those who voted in favour of the project. "This causes us to question the PL's current policy on the environment, as this looks more favourable to unrestrained development. Unfortunately, the PN representative was absent for this crucial vote, so we cannot know how he would have voted."

Share on printPrintMore Sharing ServicesShareShare on tweetE-Mail

• LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT

• 1 Comment

POSTED BY: Skocciz — 27/04/2012 20:09:43

Ramblers Malta are promoting the stand of a large section of all Maltese. They are confronting speculators, developers, contractors and some selfish hunters to protect and safeguard what remains of our countryside. Unfortunately RAM Malta is still being deprived of what the UK ramblers achieved 80 years ago! Government ministers just promise but hardly deliver. This is the main reason for the current mess of our countryside.

Ramblers welcome MEPA decision on Portomaso application

Gozo News.Com

For all the latest Gozo and Malta news

Ramblers welcome MEPA decision on Portomaso application

Published on Friday, 27, April, 2012 at 15:36 in Malta News | No Comments 

inShare

	Email a link to this item -	A A A A A A A	Print Story

The Ramblers Association of Malta said that it welcomes the news that the Portomaso Extension application was rejected by the MEPA board.

Ramblers commented that, “it is not so pleased that the board was divided on this issue, when, to all intents and purposes, the decision should been crystal clear. This is in view of the fact that the original permit, for the Portomaso buildings, stated that no further development could be carried out in this area. Apart from the other reasons militating against approval of this application, this condition alone should have been enough for this application to be thrown out, without MEPA wasting its time, and everyone else’s, in considering and evaluating this spurious application.”

Ramblers said “it is therefore surprising that half the MEPA board members actually voted in favour of this development. It seems that the recent cultural change in favour of more sustainable development has not permeated to all the board members.” the BGO said, those who voted “yes” are apparently still in favour of the maxim: “If there is an open space, let’s build it.”

Ramblers also noted “that the PL representative on the board was one of those who voted in favour of the project. This causes us to question the PL’s current policy on the environment, as this looks more favourable to unrestrained development. Unfortunately, the PN representative was absent for this crucial vote, so we cannot know how he would have voted.”

The NGO said that it is not in agreement with the MEPA chairman’s stance that the restriction against further development should not have been included in the first permit. According to the Times, the NGO continued: “Mr Walker criticised the decision to include the condition in the first permit precluding further development, saying that the hands of future board members should not be tied down in this way.”

“This is in fact the reason for these restrictions, to tie the hand of future board members, so that developments cannot be extended in the “usual” manner, by submitting one application after another, each one extending the built-up area. Mr Walker, more than anyone else, should be aware of this.”

“Having said that, Mr Walker should still be commended for doing the right thing, and voting against,” the Ramblers Association concluded.

RAMBLERS APPLAUD MEPA's DECISION AGAINST PORTOMASO EXTENSION

The Ramblers Association of Malta was very pleased that the Portomaso Extension application was rejected by the MEPA board.

Ramblers are however not so pleased that the board was divided on this issue, when, to all intents and purposes, the decision should been crystal clear. This is in view of the fact that the original permit, for the Portomaso buildings, stated that no further development could be carried out in this area.  Apart from the other reasons militating against approval of this application, this condition alone should have been enough for this application to be thrown out, without MEPA wasting its time, and everyone else's, in considering and evaluating this spurious application.

It is therefore surprising that half the MEPA board members actually voted in favour of this development.  It seems that the recent cultural change in favour of more sustainable development has not permeated to all the board members. Those who voted “yes” are apparently still in favour of the maxim: "If there is an open space, let's build it".

Ramblers also note that the PL representative on the board was one of those who voted in favour of the project. This causes us to question the PL’s current policy on the environment, as this looks more favourable to unrestrained development.  Unfortunately, the PN representative was absent for this crucial vote, so we cannot know how he would have voted.         

We are also not in agreement with the MEPA chairman's stance that the restriction against further development should not have been included in the first permit. According to the Times: "Mr Walker criticised the decision to include the condition in the first permit precluding further development, saying that the hands of future board members should not be tied down in this way".  This is in fact the reason for these restrictions, to tie the hand of future board members, so that developments cannot be extended in the "usual" manner, by submitting one application after another, each one extending the built-up area.  Mr. Walker, more than anyone else, should be aware of this.

Having said that, Mr Walker should still be commended for doing the right thing, and voting against.

26 April, 2012

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Ramblers give St Julians apartment plans the boot

The Ramblers’ Association is calling on the planning authority’s board to refuse the proposal to extend the Portomaso development by 46 new apartments.

The site constitutes an ecological zone as well as a buffer zone for the historic entrenchment wall, the association said.

The decision on the controversial application is expected tomorrow. The proposal is to construct the St Julians area between a centuries-old coastal entrenchment wall and the sea. The project was recommended for approval by the case officer.

“If Mepa is truly guided by its own rules, it should uphold them. Refusal should come as a matter of principle in view of the facts that the original permits were given on the explicit condition that the area is left free of urban development for its historical and landscape value,” the association said.

It added that further construction would block off public access to the foreshore – which is a constitutional right – and infringe the Local Plan on density specifications, among other things.

The authority should have investigated the case officer report very seriously, as “the endorsing case officer has downplayed or ignored the policy conditions that strongly militate against the proposal, and has recommended approval, just as in the Tas–Sellum application by the same developer”, the association said.

PrintEmail

« Gonzi and Debono head for showdownPN questions Muscat’s silence over attack »