Portomaso project breaches original permit conditions

It has been reported that the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, led by director Petra Bianchi, is backing the issue of building permits for the Portomaso Lagoon project on the site of an ecological zone protected since the original Portomaso permits.

I know people who purchased Portomaso apartments in 2003 after being assured by the developers that the site between their apartments and the sea could never be built as this was a protected ecological zone and also because all the permits included a condition categorically stating that no new developments would be allowed at Portomaso.

When she was appointed to head the EPD Ms Bianchi promised to protect heritage in all its forms. Now she endorses a report which concludes that “there are no overriding ecological reasons” to protect one of the two green enclaves and protected ecological zones at Spinola.

The Portomaso permit conditions were clear, specific and precise. The site of the proposed 46 apartments was designated an ecological zone due to presence of two extremely rare species, and had to be fenced off throughout the construction project. The developers were obliged to carry out monitoring surveys during, and for five years after, the project but for some strange reason the EPD did not enforce these obligations.

The EPD should stick to its responsibilities. It finds the construction of 46 apartments between the historic centuries-old coastal entrenchment wall and the sea acceptable, on the premise that the apartments will not be higher than the foundations of the wall. What about the context between the defensive wall, the natural lie of the land falling away towards the coast and the sea?

Now the centuries-old wall will have 46 modern apartments around a large swimming pool as its context. Will this be the same historic coastal entrenchment wall?

Maybe Ms Bianchi will try to justify the project proposals during the Mepa public hearing by going on the misguided conclusions of the EPD report, and maybe she will even argue that permit conditions issued 15 years ago precluding any further permits in the whole Portomaso site are now overtaken by events.

Such an argument could make sense if there were over-arching national interests why a permit for a new hospital, or a power station, or some other critical infrastructural project was required on this specific site, but here we are looking at another 46 apartments for a private developer – nothing to do with the national interest.

Indeed, a permit for 46 apartments on this site will go directly against the national interest, because at the time of the original Portomaso permits, Mepa then rightly stated in its conditions that no further developments are permissible on the whole Portomaso site, and this because the developer had been allowed sufficient development to abundantly cover his investment, and because the rest of the site had to be protected for ecological, cultural and public uses, and as public open space.

Besides, how will the EPD compensate those bona-fide residents who purchased property overlooking the site of the ecological zone, in full knowledge that the site was protected, and that the permit conditions did not allow any further buildings at Portomaso?