MaltaToday previous editions

9 News maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2013 rmit for 46 new villas Simon Micallef Stafrace In 1997, in a report presented to government, Parliamentary Ombudsman Joe Sammut concluded that the government "failed to use its negotiating powers to maximise the benefits to be derived from the deal". He also recommended changes to law to ensure that any similar deals in the future are approved in parliament. Sammut intervened in the case following a hunger strike by a number of environmental activists, and his intervention proved crucial in subsequent changes to the law, obliging government to seek parliament's consent before passing public land to private interests. Following the approval of the Portomaso permit in 1995, a notice was put on the site which is now earmarked for the lagoon development stating that the site within this wall is being sealed off for the protection of important ecological species during project construction and will be opened to the public. But in 2006, changes were made to the local plan which identified the site earmarked as a protected ecological zone as one suitable for development. It was this change which ultimately gave the appeals board the legal argument to allow the development. It was only in 2008 that the developers presented an application to develop the site. But it was clear that the application faced a number of planning objections. In 2009, MEPA's own Forward Planning Unit concluded that since the Portomaso area is already overdeveloped, no development should be allowed on this site. Although the case officer report recommended approval of the project on the basis of the changes made to the local plan in 2006 also reveals a number of inconsistencies in the way the local plan was amended. For example, it refers to correspondence in which MEPA's Local Planning Unit states that it remains "unclear" why the site was not scheduled as an ecological zone in the local plan issued in 2006, which instead earmarked the site for development. The LPU concluded that "the interpretation of the relevant policies… leave some latitude for interpretation". Ultimately, it was this latitude for interpretation which saved the day for Tumas Group. Austin Walker While recommending the development for approval, the case officer report issued before the 2012 decision confirms that the intention of the original permit for the Portomaso development was to keep this area development-free. It even cites minutes of MEPA's Executive Committee held on 8 October 2009 which state that "the conditions in the outline and the full development permits for the Portomaso project indicate that the aim of the deciding bodies has been to limit the development to no more than what was approved at the time" and to "retain the area outside the wall as free from development". MEPA's Forward Planning Unit concluded that from a landscape and townscape point of view, it is desirable to leave the site undeveloped so that the existing coastal stretches remain open and green to the benefit of the public. "In synthesis, therefore, we recommend that the site remains undeveloped." The MEPA unit also states that the fact the location shows signs of overdevelopment is a central planning issue and proposed capping of the development to what exists at present. "The general lack of public open space in the locality is an important issue. This shortage of public open space will be exacerbated if the proposed development is granted. This point assumes greater importance when one considers that the site is on the coast." Labour appoints new tribunal The fate of the ecological zone now earmarked for 46 villas, was sealed by the new appeal's tribunal appointed by the new Labour government in July. The Portomaso application was one of 740 pending cases have been transferred from the jurisdiction of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's full-time appeals tribunal appointed in 2011 to the new parttime tribunal recently appointed by the new Labour government. The government justified the creation of the new board, claiming that a backlog of cases has been accumulated over the past few years. Known as Tribunal B, the panel appointed by the new government is chaired by planner and MEPA official Martin Saliba and includes Freeport chairman Robert Sarsero, a practicing architect and part owner of Arkea Projects and Main Properties Ltd, and Labour candidate and lawyer Simon Micallef Stafrace. The original panel's workload was limited to concluding those cases, which are in their final stages. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal has the last say in appeals presented against decisions taken by the MEPA boards and commissions. The new panel appointed last month will therefore have the ultimate say over a number of controversial pending cases. The new part-time board complements an existing board composed of architect Chris Falzon as chairperson, Dr Ramon Rossignaud and architect Jevon Vella, who were engaged on a full-time basis for four years by MEPA in 2011. Tribunal A's responsibility will now be that of concluding those cases where the hearings have been finalised and where a decision is pending. In 2011, MEPA announced that the board was contracted on a full-time basis "to further enhance the efficiency and consistency of MEPA's decision-making process" and to avoid "conflicts of interest". Under the new board, however, the members are being appointed on a part-time basis and will be able to continue exercising their professions. However, they will be expected to abstain from any case in which they may have a conflict of interest, which they will have to declare. In such cases, where a board member has to abstain from a particular case, the Tribunal members can be replaced by the newly appointed 'substitute members' on the new board. jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt

• Cover