Munchies kiosk had a 'concession' from Lands Department

Mepa has postponed taking a decision  on the relocation of the Munchies kiosk by a week, following a dispute on the ownership of part of the land where the controversial Munchies kiosk is to be relocated.

The planning directorate had previously recommended the approval of the relocation of the kiosk presently located on the beach to an area located under the present car park.  The development also includes a smaller structure over the carpark and  an 80 square meter open terrace, described as a belvedere, where tables and chairs will be placed. Six parking spaces from the existing carpark will be lost as a result of development.

During the meeting it emerged that despite the planning illegality, the restaurant has a license from the commissioner of lands. 

The belvedere and the structure on the present car park  was not foreseen in the 2004 outline permit, which also stipulated that all development was to be underground.

Lawyer Franco Vassallo insisted that the structure is legal, having been leased from government since 1990 before the area was scheduled by MEPA as a grade 1 protected Natura 2000 site.  Last year, MEPA issued an enforcement notice against what it considered an illegal development on scheduled land. The enforcement order refers to “the construction and repeated extensions” of the Munchies kiosk which covers 465 square metres of a Grade 1 scheduled site.

The right of of use of part of the land upon which the new kiosk is located is claimed by the neighboring Tanti Kiosk, who demanded a postponement of the decision. The lawyer representing the Tanti Kiosk threatened to apply for an injunction against the development and claimed that there was an error on the face of a record. He demanded the decision be postponed by a week. At first  MEPA chairman Vince Cassar proposed that a decision be taken today, after which a meeting between the two parties would be held.  But subsequently he accepted the request to postpone the decision by a week to facilitate an agreement between the two parties.

The ownership issue dominated the meeting, during which environmental issues were not addressed except by board member Victor Axiaq, who insisted that guarantees be put in place to ensure that no further encroachments are made on the sand. The developer insisted that the permit as proposed excluded any such extension.  Axiaq referred to the extension of the existing kiosk over the sand asking whether the new kiosk will do the same.  But this was excluded by the architect of the relocated Munchies. Neither was the aesthectic impact of the new kiosk addressed except for a remark by the Planning Directorate's representative that the development has no negative visual impact.