With a decision on a controversial proposal to extend Portomaso by 46 new apartments expected on Thursday, objectors have reacted with fury to a case officer report recommending the project’s approval.
Protests are the work of a vocal minority
“This is pure treachery. The site’s original permits categorically state that no further development will be permitted in the area. If they just change their minds now, what is Mepa for?” asked Portomaso resident Ingrid Radcliffe Serge.
The proposal is to construct the St Julian’s area between a centuries-old coastal entrenchment wall and the sea.
The permit dates back to June 1996, when the Malta Environment and Planning Authority categorically stated that “no extensions or enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development will be permitted”.
But the case officer report related to this latest development makes no mention of the 1996 permit, instead quoting an earlier outline permit which tempered this categorical refusal by saying that further development would only be considered if they improved the “design and quality of the project”.
Several years in the pipeline, the development proposal had also raised eyebrows within Mepa’s Local Planning Unit, which argued that developers would need to demolish an equivalent amount of floor-space if the proposed new development were to abide by local plan density requirements.
But while the unit also raised concerns about the proposed development’s effect on the area’s landscape, it admitted that several policy and local plan incongruities left “some latitude for interpretation” from its original recommendation to keep the site undeveloped.
According to the proposal’s chief architect, Ray Demicoli, criticism of the proposal was unwarranted.
“The area’s Local Plan designates the area as a building site, and that supersedes the original 1996 permit decision. Besides, there are precedents: Mepa has issued three permits to the Portomaso project since that date,” he said.
If successful, the proposal would lead to “a unique project in all the Mediterranean”, Mr Demicoli argued. He described feedback from existing Portomaso residents as “mostly positive”, dismissing criticism of the proposal.
“It’s the work of a vocal minority. But as always happens, those opposed make themselves heard, while those in favour or indifferent, don’t.”
Objectors have also pointed to environmental concerns, saying the area earmarked for development constitutes an ecological zone.
However, Mepa’s Environmental Planning Directorate found “no overriding ecological purpose” for the retention of this zone, given that recent ecological surveys did not find any Wedgefoot Grass there – a key species when the area was first flagged as ecologically important.
The reasoning was criticised by Astrid Vella of Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar. “The fact that Wedgefoot Grass is no longer present should prompt Mepa to investigate, not do away with the zone’s ecological status,” she said.
Mr Demicoli insisted that concerns about the development were misplaced. “Everyone acknowledges the contribution Portomaso has made to Malta and contemporary living. The project’s been a massive success, and this [proposal] will tie it all together.”
Ms Radcliffe Serge expressed doubt. She told The Sunday Times she had bought a Portomaso residence on the explicit understanding that the area earmarked for development would be turned into a landscaped garden and ecological zone.
“Instead, some months later we found out that plans were afoot to turn the area into apartments. What greed. The whole matter has disgusted me.”