The
Ramblers’ Association of Malta appeals to the Mepa Board to refuse the proposal
to extend the
Portomaso
development by 46 new apartments on a site that constitutes an ecological zone
as well as a
buffer zone
for the historic entrenchment wall. If Mepa is truly guided by its own rules,
it should uphold
them;
refusal should thus come as a matter of principle in view of the facts that:
1. the
original permits were given on the explicit condition that the area is left
free of urban
development
for its historical and landscape value;
2. public
access to the foreshore, which is a constitutional right, will be further
impeded
in the area;
3. Local
Plan density specifications will be further infringed, so much so that three
permits
were cited
as precedents by the project’s architect himself;
4. an
ecological zone does not lose its status on the premise that one species has
lost its hold,
especially
when this can be re‐introduced;
5. it is
inconcievable that further development can in any way improve the “design and
quality of
the project”.
Ramblers
have read with great concern the report in the Sunday Times of the 22nd April ,
where the
objectors
called the Case Officer’s report “pure treachery.” We strongly believe MEPA
should have
investigated
the report very seriously, as, in our opinion, 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 Mepa
Board members might find a very interesting correlation with this other
application at Tas‐
Sellum,
endorsed by the same case officer. They might want to take a good look at the
recommendation
for more dwelling intensity when the Local Plan explicitly prohibits it. In
fact the
NWLP 13
(Chp17.2.14) states the “policy was formulated within the constraints created
by the
development
permission and to ensure that the provisions of that permission are not
reviewed with
consequent
development application requests.” Sadly, the Mepa Board accepted the case
officer’s
recommendation
and approved the application. This same PA is now under appeal by an objector.
If Portomaso
is a massive success, as the applicant’s architect maintains, it does not need
the extension
to “tie it
all together.” Rather, the extension will add to its already bulky mass.
This will be
an application which will put to the test how well the Mepa Board members
scrutinize the
credibility
of reports endorsed by Planning Directorate.
23 April
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment