Mepa go-ahead for high-rise buildings at Fort Cambridge

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority yesterday gave the green light to the building of six high rise buildings on the Fort Cambridge area in Sliema's Tigné peninsula, with the highest rising to 23 storeys.

Close to the colossal Midi development, the site is that of the former Crowne Plaza Hotel which had been sold by the government for Lm23.3 million to Imperial Point Co. Ltd in December 2006.

The development brief includes the construction of 365 new apartments, offices, an underground car park and a hotel. The developers should retain the existing military barracks and restore the historic Fort Cambridge.

Branded "scandalous" by Sliema residents who vociferously opposed the development during Mepa's board meeting, the decision was taken amid a number of sticking points including the heavy traffic that the new development is likely to generate and the shadow it will cast over the Qui-si-Sana and Tigné neighbourhood.

No environment impact assessment (EIA) will be carried out because Mepa deemed the information provided by the developers to be "sufficient".

According to residents, however, the massive project warranted a full EIA given its impact on social life, traffic, residents' health and the general environment of the once-tranquil Qui-si-Sana residential area.

Originally, the buildings were meant to rise to 16 storeys over two-thirds of the area - the maximum permitted by the brief. Later, however, the footprint was reduced to 35 per cent of the area to allow for more public open spaces around the buildings.

The height of the building overlooking Tigné Street was also reduced to respect the scale of the existing streetscape, the trade-off being stepping up to a maximum 23 storeys.

An objector from the floor said Mepa had refused to allow the Traffic Impact Statement to be viewed on the ground that it went against the Data Protection Act, and questioned why it was being kept secret.

Astrid Vella, from Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA), contradicted Mepa's claim that the 23-storey building would not have a negative visual impact given its proximity to Valletta. The Midi Development, which was much lower that the development being proposed, was already visible from Vittoriosa and a higher building would definitely affect the skyline of the area.

The legal note with which Mepa had waived the EIA had focused on the fact that the shadows cast by the new towers would not be different from the shadowing effect of an existing six-storey building, she said.

She claimed the project description statement which Mepa was basing its decision on was "full of falsehoods and damn lies".

Before the meeting, a number of Sliema residents staged a protest outside Mepa, expressing disgust at the way Mepa was steamrolling over residents in granting permission to the developers.

Chris Dukerley, on behalf of the Qui-si-Sana residents' association, said the provisos obliging the developers to control noise and reduce dust during the construction phase were not believable as nothing was ever enforced in Malta.

Residents were fed up being in the midst of development that never ended and brought about negative consequences, Mr Dunkerley said, naming the proposed Qui-si-Sana car park and the Town Square Project which are still seeking approval from Mepa.

When it came to decide on the application, a long discussion ensued among Mepa board chairman Andrew Calleja, the authority's lawyer and board member Joe Brincat. Citing a recent European Court sentence, Dr Brincat said such a development could not be given the go-ahead without an EIA. He dug up an article from Chapter 10 of the Police Code which dictates that a specific proportion which high rise buildings should have in relation to the width of the surrounding streets and claimed that 23-storeys was too high to be granted permission.

In this case, Mepa was bound by existing laws and approving the development meant going against the law.

The board found a way out of this legal quibble after a brief retreat, after which it was decided to grant permission on condition that the law brought up by Dr Brincat is respected. Still unhappy with the outcome, Dr Brincat was the only one to vote against the development.