Qui-Si-Sana beach: government reserves right to stop works if permit is issued

The government is reserving the right to stop works if the Malta Environment and Planning Authority issues a permit for a private beach on 800 square metres of public land in Qui-Si-Sana, but has refrained from stopping MEPA from processing this application despite the government's claims that it never issued consent for the application as required by law.

While in the application presented to MEPA three days after the appointment of the new Labour government, the developer claims that he was given the consent of the landowner - i.e. the government - a spokesperson for parliamentary secretary Michael Farrugia insists that no such consent was ever issued.

According to the government spokesperson, in cases like these all permits are issued safeguarding third party civil rights.

"In cases when the application is within government land and if for any reason MEPA issues the permit, then the Government Property Division has all the right to halt any works."

Only two weeks ago, the government claimed that the applicant did not require any consent from the government, citing a part of the law exempting leaseholders from seeking consent from government.

But when MaltaToday sought clarifications on whether the applicant enjoys any legal title on the land in question, the government spokesperson confirmed that the law does oblige the applicant to seek consent from the owner.

"If this is not done and such application is post-2010, then MEPA may stop the works on site."

In fact, prior to the MEPA reform enacted in 2010, one could freely apply on public land and even other people's property without seeking their prior consent. One classic example was the Verdala golf course, where the application covered both private and public land.

This was changed to ensure that applicants sought the consent of owners before presenting land applications.

But it remains unclear as to why the government has not yet asked MEPA to stop processing this application in view of the fact that the government is disputing the applicant's claim that he has obtained the consent of the Lands Department.

In fact the government spokesperson did not elaborate when asked whether the application presented by the developer contains wrong information, since it cites the consent of the owner of the land.

The Sliema Local Council is objecting to a development of leisure facilities on 800 square metres of pristine rocky shoreline in Qui-Si-Sana, just below the Qui-Si-Sana public garden.

The development is earmarked for "leisure development" which consists of lavatories, showers, an attendant's area and rows of sun beds, which are set to cover the rocky shoreline. The application was presented by hotelier Michael Stivala on 15 March - just three days after the appointment of the new Labour government and was published in newspapers on 21 September. 

"Such a project will deny full public access on to what is presently public land," the Sliema council said in an official objection letter sent to MEPA.

The Sliema council described the site in question as a "stretch of pristine rocky coastline" made up of globerigina limestone and characterised by rocky pools, which are rich in marine flora and fauna.

The council also points out that a World War II structure known as the coastal Artillery Search Light overlooks the site. Although the application does not impact on this recently restored historical monument, it would result in the destruction of its context.

A petition featuring an open letter to the prime minister, the Director of Lands and the chairman of MEPA protesting over the proposed development and calling for a stop to the privatisation of public beaches is being circulated on Facebook.

Curiously, in this case the application presented to MEPA states that the applicant has notified the government of its intention to apply and the owner 'has granted consent to such a proposal'.

Moreover, two weeks ago a government spokesperson insisted "no consent is needed and that no consent at this stage was granted by the GPD," citing a section of the Environment and Planning Law which states that consent of the owner is always required except when the applicant holds a lease on the property in question. In such cases, the applicant is only expected to inform the government property division and confirm that the site is in government ownership. 

When presenting an applications, applicants have three options: either to register as the sole owners of the land, to declare that they do not own the land in question (but have the consent of the owners), or to declare that they hold the site under a title of a lease. In this case, the applicant had chosen to state that he has the consent of the owner.

But in the latest twist, the government has confirmed that the applicant did require a consent from the government and the government, which denies having issued any consent, is reserving its right to stop any works if a permit is granted.