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 »

RAMBLERS SUPPORT OBJECTORS OF PORTOMASO EXTENSION

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