Mepa board should refuse Portomaso extension project

The Application Report (DPAR) by the Planning Directorate (PD) for the Portomaso extension project is now published and referred for a decision by the Mepa board set for Thursday.

The report makes reference to objections to the proposal by the Local Planning Unit, the Mepa Executive Committee, the Natural Heritage Committee, and others, but the DPAR concludes by recommending approval by the Mepa board.

As usual, this looks like another case of the Planning Directorate within Mepa being ‘weak with the strong’ at the expense of the public, the environment, and our cultural heritage.

The DPAR prepared by the case officer observes that: 1. The Local Planning Unit showed that for this project to be approved, an equivalent number of apartments already built at Portomaso will have to be demolished to retainthe same density as required by the North Harbours Local Plan;

2. The DPAR ignores the LPU explanation that the original Portomaso permits restricted the developments to behind the entrenchment wall;

3. The Natural Heritage Advisory Committee objected to the project as the site had to be protected as an “ecological enclave” as determined by the EIA and the original permits at Portomaso;

4. The Executive Committee at Mepa insisted that no development should take place outside the entrenchment wall;

5. The Mepa board had imposed conditions in the original Portomaso permits that no extensions or new developments would be allowed at Portomaso;

6. There is an enforcement notice on the site atPortomaso and therefore no permits may be considered before the notice is withdrawn or the illegality sanctioned; and

7. The site of the proposed project is the only access to the coast and is part of the coast, besides providing the context of the historic coastal entrenchment wall with the coast.

But then, the DPAR forgets all these considerations and recommends approval of the project by the Mepa board.

Over the last two years, and following the Mepa reform, the Mepa board has won its spurs by taking many proper and courageous decisions in turning down recommendations by the Planning Directorate for approval of projects that would have had a detrimental effect on the environment and gone against the public interest. It is hoped that in this case too the public interest will prevail and the Mepa board will refuse this development permit application.