Portomaso lagoon development recommended for approval

MEPA's Planning Directorate is recommending the approval of 46 villas set on a lagoon located in a zone designated as an ecological area in the original permit for the Portomaso development. 

But the case officer reveals that in 2009, MEPA's own Forward Planning Unit concluded that since the area is already over developed no development should be allowed on this site.

The case officer report also refers to correspondence in which MEPA's Local Planning Unit states that it remains "unclear" why the site was not scheduled as an ecological zone in the local plan issued in 2006, which instead earmarked the site for developments.

The planning controversy revolves around a permit condition imposed when the outline permit for the Portomaso development was issued in 1996 which states that "no extensions/enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development within or outside the site will be permitted".

In fact following the approval of the Portomaso permit in 1995 a notice was put on the site which is now earmarked for development stating that  "As part of the Hilton Site Development Project, the site within this wall is being sealed off for the protection of important ecological species during project construction and will be opened to the public...any inconvenience is regretted."

Board minutes decry development

While recommending the development for approval the case officer report confirms that the intention of the original permit for the Portomaso development was to keep this area development free.

It even cites minutes of MEPA's Executive Committee held on 8 October 2009 which state that "the conditions in the outline and the full development permits for the Portomaso project indicate that the aim of the deciding bodies has been to limit the development to no more than what was approved at the time." And "retain the area outside the wall as free from development."

MEPA's Forward Planning Unit concluded that from a landscape and townscape point of view it is desirable to leave the site undeveloped so that the existing coastal stretches remain open and green to the benefit of the public. "In synthesis therefore we recommend that the site remains undeveloped."

The MEPA unit also states that the fact the location shows signs of overdevelopment is a central planning issue and proposing the capping of the development to what exists at present.

"The general lack of public open space in the locality is an important issue. This shortage of public open space will be exacerbated if the proposed development is granted. This point assumes greater importance when one considers that the site is on the coast".

But these comments were made before the project was downscaled by the developers.

The grass is not greener

The area described as the "southern ecological zone" was deemed important mainly because of the populations of Sphenopus divaricatus (Wedgefoot Grass) and Anthemis urvilleana (Maltese Sea Chamomile) that were recorded within this zone.

The 1995 EIS had suggested that the area containing Wedgefoot Grass might qualify for Level 2 protection as an Area of Ecological Importance

Subsequently this ecological zone was identified on the approved plans and a permit condition imposed to keep the site development free.

Residents objecting to the project argue that the Development Planning Act, state that no development plan can reverse or even modify the terms and conditions of a development permission. 

But subsequent ecological surveys have shown that the plant has disappeared from the area.

Despite the intention to designate the area as an ecological zone, the local plan approved in 2006 still designated the area for residential development. Residents contend that a local plan cannot over rule a permit condition. They also argue that public consultation on the local plans was inadequate.

In an email written to MEPA In February 2012 architect Paul Gauci casts doubts on the legality of approving any development on the site.

"The North Harbout Local Plan indicates that the part of the Portomaso area earmarked for the proposed project is developable for residential purposes but the condition ...  tied to the development permission for the

Portomaso Master Plan prohibits any form of physical development in the area earmarked for the proposed project. In other words, there is absolutely no way in which the applied-for permission can be issued lawfully".

But the case officer report justifies the development on the basis of the local plan designation and cites legal advice according to which MEPA was perfectly entitled to consider the application in question.

The Planning Directorate argues that the local plan, which designates the area as a residential zone, was issued after the original permit for the Portomaso development.

It also highlights the proviso attached to the permit condition that "any proposals for alterations to the approved plans will only be considered if they contribute to an improvement in the design and quality of the project and all such alterations will require the approval of the Planning Authority.'

Local Plan Unit casts doubts

A report by MEPA's Local Plan Unit cited in the case officer report raises a number of questions on the way the zone was designated for development despite the original intention to safeguard it.

It notes that the Local Plan designated a number of areas for their ecological sensitivity.

"It is not clear why the area due East of the entrenchment wall (the site of the present development) was not included as being of ecological importance, given that at the time the relevant issues were known."

One of the maps included in local plan shows areas indicated in a blue dotted texture were to be preserved as part of the natural coast.

"If the intention was to leave the area free from development, it is not clear why was this area not given similar shading?"

Another map designates the area in question as one for  "Residential and low impact uses"

"If the intention was to limit development till the entrenchment wall, why was the shading extended beyond it if the intention was to leave the area undeveloped?"

The LPU concluded that "the interpretation of the relevant policies" "leave some latitude for interpretation."

No right for a view

Replying to objections on the impact of the project enjoyed by residents living near the Cavallieri hotel, the Planning Directorate replied by stating "the right to a view is not a planning issue." However it contends that both MEPA and the applicant have considered this issue in the process of this application.

The report also states that the project has been revised to ensure that the historical entrenchment wall (breached by the original Portomaso development) is not hidden from view.  In fact the project was downscaled from three to two storeys.