Objectors insist original Portomaso permit does not allow extension
A Mepa public meeting held to discuss a planned extension to the Portomaso project drew very low attendance this afternoon.
The meeting was held at St Julian's primary school.
The developers are proposing to develop a stretch of land adjacent to the southern block of the Portomaso Complex between Spinola Road, the edge of the existing marina and the foreshore. The project will feature a central lagoon, 46 dwellings on two storeys and 98 parking spaces.
The developers say the roof of the residential units will be landscaped in order to safeguard the views from overlying Portomaso apartments.
A lawyer and an architect representing the registered objectors, as well as Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio, questioned the legality of Mepa actually considering this project, since one of the conditions of the original Portomaso permit laid down that no further development could take place.
They insisted that moreover, the Environment Impact Assessment should have started from scratch rather than having an updating of the 1995 EIA.
Architect Paul Gauci, who has been objecting to the extension since 2008, said the impact of the construction work on air quality and noise pollution was not considered in the EIA.
He insisted that according to law, conditions linked to a specific permit, as in the case of the original Portomaso permit, could not be reversed, and therefore Mepa should not consider or allow this extension.
Dr Briguglio read out the condition in the original permit saying no extensions would be allowed.
Architect Ray Demicoli, speaking for the developers, explained that the roof of the properties will be 8.5 metres from the lagoon level. The lagoon, which will be used for swimming, will use state-of-the-art filtration systems to reduce the amount of chlorine. There will be a waterfall into the current marina.
Reacting to the comments on the condition in the original permit, Mr Demicoli said several other developments on the Potomaso site had been carried out since the original permit following approval by Mepa.
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Alfred Baldacchino
Apr 26th, 17:57
A Baldacchino - Now how about planting some palm trees and other greenery on the site.
Mr John Borg
Oct 12th 2011, 22:03
Wait a moment.....Development in Dingli street stopped due to a trafic impact assement claiming another block of flats will cause havoc. (As though Sliema isn't already a nightmare).,,but an extension to Portomaso (of a well connected contractor/developer) will not create more traffic I gather???
FISHY!
Ms Rose Cilia
Oct 12th 2011, 20:32
The love of money is the root of all evil !
Mr J. Bonnici
Oct 12th 2011, 20:21
Ma naghmlux mod ha nergghu nibdew bil-kummiedji fil-MEPA hux?
C Galea
Oct 12th 2011, 18:50
Have a look at this condition listed in this article
one of the conditions of the original Portomaso permit laid down that no further development could take place.
See why we all do not believe the conditions that Mepa puts for developers ,because they all will be broken with all sorts of excuses ,
This all happened in Gozo ,and hopefully it will not happen to Hondoq ir Rummien. Qala residents don`t believe the promises that you will be told.
Marco Meli
Oct 12th 2011, 18:02
who cares about a waterfall if it will be privatized then!!!! There are still some Portomaso dwellings that are still empty, then why issue them with a permit to built more??? shame if the permit is allowed
John Portelli
Oct 12th 2011, 17:11
Why not allow this development.
After all, it will only increase the number of residential units by another 46 dwellings on top of the 76,000 vacant properties.
What harm does that do?