The Planning Directorate concluded its report on the proposal to build 46 new apartments in an ecological zone protected by the original Portomaso permits, and is recommending approval of this application by the Mepa board.
This recommendation is based on a series of mistaken premises which will no doubt be discussed during the upcoming board hearing, and the most glaring must be the case officer’s reference on page 24 to the validity of the original permit conditions.
The report refers to the original condition that “No extensions/enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development within or outside the site will be permitted. Any proposals for alterations to the approved plans will only be considered if they contribute to an improvement in the design and quality of the project and all such alterations will require the approval of the Planning Authority.”
The latter part is the case officer’s emphasis and he then argues that the authority had left the door open by this condition to consider any extensions if these could improve the design and quality of the project.
What the case officer does not say is that this condition was attached to the outline development permits for the project issued in July 1995 and February 1996, and that when full development permits were issued in June 1996 for phase 1 (the hotel and conference centre, the marina, 250 apartments and 60 marina residences), and in February 1998 (for the rest of the development), the condition was changed to read that “no extensions or enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development will be permitted”.
In other words, if such flexibility was reasonably allowed at outline permit stage when the project proposals were still at concept stage, on approval of the full permits, all scope for further development was finally extinguished, period.
The current Mepa board has shown its credentials in the past few years by not taking any nonsense from its directorates and by taking its decisions objectively, not on slanted reports, and I am sure it will do so once more by rejecting this application.