Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/228594
18 News maltatoday, SUNDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2013 Made by MEPA? Blessing of Mistra was a long time coming MEPA director Sylvio Farrugia has claimed ownership for the approval of Mistra Heights way back in 2008. But in this interview, he shows why he followed the direction of the politicallyappointed MEPA board JAMES DEBONO THE planning authority's new deputy director Sylvio Farrugia, who formerly led MEPA's major projects unit and endorsed the recommendations for the approval of the controversial Mistra project's outline permit in 2008 and full permit in 2013, claims that the environmental ombudsman's recent report attacking these decisions, is flawed. Farrugia, recently promoted to MEPA's planning directorate's deputy director in an internal call, told MaltaToday his recommendation was informed by various meetings held between 2004 and 2008 with the MEPA board. Planning ombudsman David Pace last week said the 770-apartment Mistra Heights development, developed by Kuwaiti company Gemxija Holdings, was approved using the floor-area ratio (FAR) policy that was itself as yet unapproved. The FAR rationalises the spread of footprint by compensating it with added height. Pace opined that tall buildings on Mistra Ridge were effectively ruled out by the fact that policy was not yet approved. But the outline permit issued in 2008, was recommended for approval by Farrugia in his two-hour presentation on behalf of the major projects unit, during a public hearing. Farrugia now insists he did not refer to a policy on building heights, but to 'development control guidelines' issued in 2000, 2005 and 2007, which foresaw the application of the FAR. "MEPA had already applied this mechanism on sites like the high-rise at Paola," Farrugia told MaltaToday. One of the biggest bones of contention in the approval of Mistra is the fact that during the 2008 hearing, objectors who raised the fact that the FAR policy ruled out development on ridges like Mistra, were told by the MEPA board secretary that the policy was not yet approved by the minister; but no such qualification was made when Sylvio Farrugia used the same policy to justify the development. Activists gathered at an environmental protest last Saturday Artist's impression of the Mistra plans done in 2008 (right) and the plans as they are now (left) Ombudsman stands by conclusions David Pace has defended his report, insisting that Farrugia had indeed referred to the "FAR policy" in the 2008 hearing. "If he was referring to the Development Control Guidelines, during the minuted presentation, he should have specifically done so." Pace in fact says the guidelines issued in 2007 actually refer to the FAR policy, by referring MEPA to the 2006 draft policy when dealing with "the suitability of areas as candidates for the siting of tall and medium rise buildings". He also points out that the case officer's report had clearly stated that the "draft [FAR] policy is relevant since it provides guidance for tall buildings." "I didn't want to single out Farrugia and I simply mentioned him because MEPA Chairman Vince Cassar chairing the meeting which granted Gemxija the full permit for Mistra Heights he was the MEPA official who made the presentation in the public hearing," Pace said, who in fact was very critical of the board then chaired by Austin Walker which issued the 2008 outline permit in the first place. Farrugia defends recommendation While Pace has reprimanded the major projects unit for supporting the proposal "regardless of the detrimental effects it was bound to have on its environs", Farrugia says his role was to minimize Mistra Heights' visual impact by constantly scaling it down from the developer's plans. "In so doing I always followed the direction given by the MEPA board," Farrugia said, adding that before 2008 he presented three options that included the development of a four-storey dwelling built on individual plots, an option he claims was favoured by NGOs. "The planning directorate itself recommended the high-rise option as a development of 800 apartments on individual plots would have had the same impact on the traffic situation, and resulted in haphazard development instead of a comprehensive one," Farrugia said. "While my name is visible on the application where I am identified as the one endorsing the recommendation, it is ridiculous to assume that a project of the scale of Mistra was carried forward by a single person. As happens in such cases involving massive investment, it is the MEPA board that sets the direction." While in 2008 the MEPA board unanimously approved the project, the planning directorate never issued a negative recommendation despite Mistra's adverse visual impact, as confirmed in its environment impact assessment. "Any tall building is bound to have an impact on the landscape. That's why our main concern right up to 2012 was to further downscale the project from the original 992 to 774 apartments. We never actually called on the MEPA board to refuse the project but were constantly discussing ways to mitigate its impact." The Mistra Saga There is a certain credence to Farrugia's claim that the project had the full backing of the MEPA board. A 2001 draft local plan issued for public consultation limited development on the site of the former Mistra Village to four storeys. But this was changed in 2006, allowing the FAR mechanism to increase the height to eight storeys or even higher in the case of a "noteworthy urban and architectural design of the highest calibre [which] provides the highest quality in architectural form and details". Ombudsman David Pace questioned whether Mistra Heights is really of a high calibre. The 2006 local plan cites discussions held back in 2004 between HK Corporatoin and MEPA to redevelop the site for residential used: it was here that MEPA "accepted the principle of comprehensive development and the adoption of the Floor Area Ratio." Minutes from April 2004 show that MEPA chairman Andrew Calleja agreed "that if the Mistra Village site had to be redeveloped this had to be done in a comprehensive manner by adopting the Floor Area Ratio mechanism with regards to height." This shows that at this early stage MEPA had already ruled out low-rise development on separate plots. But the minutes suggest the board had not yet committed itself on whether any development should take place in the area. This meeting coincided with the first application presented by a Saudi Arabian company called HK Corporation, which proposed a landmark 37-storey tower at Mistra. HK subsequently disappeared and the Corinthia Group eventually sold the land to the Montebello-Gemxija joint venture. Their application was then discussed by the MEPA board several times in meetings it had with the planning directorate. MEPA was scheduled to take a decision on 31 January 2008, but it postponed the hearing following MEPA's own request to update the EIA: saving it from taking a controversial decision during the electoral campaign. In June 2008 the project was approved despite protests by conservationists Din l-Art Helwa, who pointed out the clear prohibition of high-rise development in Mistra in the draft policy on building heights. In 2012 the developers accepted to reduce the number of apartments to 774 after discussions with MEPA's planning directorate. No further attempts to reduce the height were made after the 2013 election. And with Transport Malta dropping its previous objections – saying the downscaled project was be any worse than what was approved in 2008 – this removed one of the pending issues left unresolved in the original outline permit. On 30 October, the MEPA board decided behind closed doors to reject a call by Din l-Art Helwa to revoke the permit, approving it the next day. Parliamentary secretary for planning Michael Farrugia claimed that the refusal would have resulted in compensation claims of up to €70 million. Gemxija's lawyer – PN president Anne Fenech – claimed the MEPA board had no choice but to approve the project. MEPA itself said the permit could only be revoked had the board been misled by wrong information from the developer or its own directorates. But the ombudsman insists the revocation is now possible because the 2008 permit was issued "in breach or in disregard to policy" – he substantiates this by referring to the revocation of the permit for a disco on the Mistra land owned by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. "The board did not have its hands tied by the previous permit issued in 2008," Pace said in his report – the outline permit left major issues unresolved, namely the traffic impact on Xemxija Hill at the mouth of Mistra Heights, which was left as "a reserved matter" to be decided upon when the full permit is issued. jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt