No need for Fort Cambridge EIA, Malta insists with Brussels

Malta listed three reasons when insisting with the European Commission there is no need of an environment impact assessment for the development proposed at Fort Cambridge development in Tignè, Sliema.

"We have received a formal response from the Maltese Foreign Ministry last week and we are now in the process of analysing the government's reply to our request for information," a Commission source said.

Malta was given one month - until July 29 - by the EU executive to respond to a claim that the issuing of a planning permit for the development of Fort Cambridge, in Tignè, could have been in breach of the EU's EIA Directive.

According to this directive, certain public and private projects likely to have significant effects on the environment have to be environmentally assessed before any development consent can be granted.

The Commission's initiative was taken after a complaint filed by the Qui-Si-Sana and Tignè residents associations.

In its reply, Malta insists that the planned development does not warrant an EIA.

A spokesman for the Ministry for Rural Development and the Environment said the government has put across all the relevant arguments in support of its stand.

The letter states that "the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) had determined that, having considered all relevant factors listed in Annex 3 of the Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the redevelopment of the former Crowne Plaza Hotel site is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. It is pertinent to note that it is the responsibility of the Maltese competent authority, Mepa, to determine whether or not a project will produce a significant impact, after studying the information submitted by the applicant".

The government also points out that this particular project type falls under Annex 2 of the EU directive and so it is 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," the government argues.

It lists three reasons to justify Mepa's conclusion that no EIA was required:

1. The characteristics and sensitivities of the area had already been established through EIAs carried out for the larger construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the former Crowne Plaza Hotel site, such as for the MIDI project at Tignè Point.

2. The development is on a site that had already been committed with the then 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 had already been developed and that had already been in use in the past.

3. The whole area of land in question could already be fully developed for housing in a conventional manner. Conventional housing projects consisting of a series of terraced blocks would have resulted in a far higher residential density as well as a greater environmental and social impact than the proposed project. Mepa 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 with regard to shadowing. It was also concluded that the environmental effects resulting from the demolition and construction phases would not be significant.

The Commission will now analyse the government's response and decide on its next line of action.

Commission sources explained that if the Commission is still not satisfied, it may choose to send a reasoned opinion to the Maltese government, its second stage of infringement proceedings. It may also decide to ask the European court to issue an injunction to stop the development until Malta comes in line with EU laws.