Fort Cambridge development

I refer to the report AD 'Proved Right' By EIA Ruling (June 29).

It is worth pointing out that, to date, the European Commission has not issued any official statement regarding the outcome of the meeting of the College of Commissioners held last week, let alone anything that "proves" Alternattiva Demokratika right on the matter.

Mepa wishes to clarify the following:

Mepa had determined that having considered all relevant factors listed in Annex III of the Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the redevelopment of the site of the former Crowne Plaza Hotel is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. It is pertinent to note that it is up to the competent authority in Malta to determine whether or not a project will produce significant impact, after studying the information submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the competent authority has the right to determine that a project does not qualify for an EIA.

This particular project type falls under Annex 2 of the directive. It is therefore up to the competent authorities of the member state to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether significant environmental effects are probable. If no significant environmental effects are determined during the screening process, an EIA is not required.

Mepa's assessment was based on a number of reasons:

The development is on a site which is already committed with an existing hotel building. Thus, the baseline for determining any impact, whether cumulative or otherwise, is the former hotel and related entertainment facilities. The footprint of the proposed project does not exceed the footprint that is already developed and in use today. Whereas the proposed development includes 386 apartments, the volume of the hotel would be equivalent to 190 residential units. The proposed project is also of a purely residential nature. The competent authority therefore concluded that any incremental impacts would not be significant, particularly as the area in question is primarily a residential area.

Moreover, the whole area of land in question could already be fully developed for housing in a conventional manner, which would have resulted in a far higher residential density as well as environmental and social impacts than under the proposed project. The competent authority was also able to conclude that any visual impacts and wind effects are not expected to be significant, and that the final design adopted would only have a minimal impact as regards shadowing. It was also concluded that the environmental effects resulting from the demolition and construction phases would not be significant.

In this particular case, a highly relevant factor was the fact that the characteristics and sensitivities of the area had already been established through EIAs carried out for larger construction projects, such as that carried out for the Tigné Point Development, in the immediate vicinity of the former Crowne Plaza Hotel. It could, therefore, be reasonably concluded with a high degree of certainty that all potentially significant environmental impacts had been identified in the detailed Project Description Statement that was submitted by the applicant's consultants. Furthermore, it could be reliably determined that there was no sensitivity in the area as regards the natural environment.

The Maltese authorities will be replying in detail to any technical or legal points which may be raised by the Commission. They will also be explaining the procedures this project was subjected to and clearly showing that the decision taken was based on sound criteria and was not an arbitrary one.