Din L-Art Helwa intends to stand its ground regarding the outline permit for the redevelopment of Mistra Village at Xemxija, a project which the organisation describes as ‘monstrous’.

It has written to the Mepa Board stating that the approval of the outline development permit, granted in 2008, was done in the absence of important and relevant information and should be annulled.

The organisation is invoking an article within the Environment and Planning Act claiming irregular process and ‘Error on the Face of a Record’, a procedure permitted by the act.

It is also requesting Environment and Planning Commissioner David Pace at the Ombudsman’s Office, to carry out an investigation into the process which the organisation maintains was ‘incomplete, dubious and misleading’.

The decision sealing the fate of the picturesque ridge at Xemxija, formerly occupied by the low lying and terraced houses of Mistra Village Holiday Complex is due to be decided by Mepa on Thursday.

If the application is approved, six massive towering blocks of 12 floors, requiring some 1,200 car spaces, will rise sharply and unnaturally from the edge of this picturesque ridge creating a monstrous and permanent blot on the landscape.

Din l-Art Helwa said there were several incomplete submissions, biased information and irregularities which led to the drawing up of a misleading Development Permit Application Report, presented to the Mepa Board at the time.

This resulted in the board giving their approval to the project. A request for investigation was sent to the Audit Officer at Mepa, however no reply was ever received, it said.

LOCAL PLANS

The local plan for the area allows only four floors, however, in this application an as yet unapproved floor area ratio policy allowing eight storeys was applied. The policy contemplated at the time expressly excluded Xemxija ridge from tall buildings, a fact that was conveniently glossed over.

Din l-Art Helwa noted that, to this day, the Floor Area Ratio Tall Buildings policy has not yet been approved or launched.

Even taking this into consideration, 11 floors were granted by the outline permit, more than a small departure from an as yet unapproved policy.

Din l-Art Helwa noted that the updated Floor Area Ratio Policy has been conveniently amended to allow high rise on Xemxija Ridge.

This was a total divergence from the 2008 version of the Floor Area Ratio Policy which specifically mentioned Xemxija ridge, as a site where tall buildings are not allowed.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

It said that the Development Planning Application Report leading to the application being granted was also incomplete in several other instances.

Mepa’s own Heritage Advisory Committee had concluded that this application should be refused. This refusal was not registered in the Environmental Impact Assessment and in the final report making it incomplete and thus biased towards the developer.

The area was scheduled as an Area of Archaeological Importance, a fact which was also not brought sufficiently to the attention of the board by the report.

IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

The huge impact the excavation and construction process would have for a number of years on traffic was not properly examined nor explained, Din l-Art Helwa said.

A traffic impact assessment was not presented to the board at the time although Transport Malta had always expressed grave concern on this issue.

In spite of the scientific reports concluding that traffic was a major problem, the latest correspondence from Transport Malta in August, stated that there was no objection to this project as the impact was minimal.

This could hardly be the case, Din l-Art Helwa insisted, when four floors of rock had to be excavated to create space for parking and laying of foundations.

The NGO estimated that this represented a truck of rubble being carried away through single lane traffic every five minutes for two years on a road which was already congested and constituted the main thoroughfare for traffic to Mellieha and Gozo.

Din l-Art Helwa maintained that in an area of such high landscape value, a development of such massive proportions should be interpreted through photomontages with supporting sections showing heights from sea level.

If presented DLH said, these would have clearly depicted the immense negative impact on the area from the most important public viewpoints.

Moreover, the photomontages available with the EIA were misleading as they were taken with wide angled perspectives and without shadows, and, in any case, were not even presented to the board despite several requests from DLH during the hearing.