Forty-six luxury bungalows will be built around an artificial lagoon in the Portomaso complex after the application was approved by a planning tribunal.
The Environment and Planning Appeals Tribunal overturned a refusal by the planning authority board and gave permission to the Tumas Group, owners of the luxury complex, to go ahead with the development.
The bungalows and a car park will overlook the lagoon, together covering an area of about 7,500 square metres on what was once a dump site – now covered in vegetation – on the foreshore at the end of Spinola Road in St Julian’s.
In its decision, the tribunal upheld an argument put forward by the developers that the local plan superseded a clause in the permit for the Portomaso complex, first given the green light in 1995. This clause had specified there would be no further development or extensions to the project.
This particular condition was “valid” when the original permits were issued. Once the area’s local plan was approved – 10 years after the Portomaso permit was granted – it covered a larger area including the site earmarked for the lagoon and bungalows, the tribunal said.
A similar situation had arisen with the extension of the Westin Hotel, where the local plan superseded a clause limiting further development. The appeal was refused in April 2012 after the former planning board was split and chairman Austin Walker used his casting vote to throw out the application, filed by Ray Fenech of Tumas Group.
The group pointed out that the plan-ning authority had approved two separate extensions to Portomaso’s hotel project,even though the original permit had carried that particular clause.
The lagoon development was a “high-quality” project that would complement and add value to the rest of the complex.
It would also offer a unique product destination in Malta, the developers argued.
The Fenechs also insisted that the site was not going to be over-developed as the project did not make full use of the land allowed and all the roofs of the bungalows were going to be landscaped, making them blend into the surroundings.
However, in its counter-arguments before the tribunal, the planning authority said that no further development was allowed on site as the earlier extensions to the complex had filled “the committed footprint”.
The lagoon site, together with another pocket of land, had been specifically identified as not open to development.
The authority also disagreed with the Fenechs’ argument that a pending enforcement notice for an illegality outside the lagoon should be limited to the affected area.
Even though the illegalities may not be on the same location as the proposed bungalows, “they form part of the Portomaso complex and are within the applicant’s full control”.
Turning to the area’s local plan, the tribunal pointed out that the draft, which was similar to the approved version, had been published for public consultation.
It also chided the planning authority for not giving a clear reason.
“Reasons for refusal have to be based on planning policies, laws and any other consideration” but the original refusal was “lacking detail and substance, creating doubts on the basis of the planning authority’s decision”.