Din l-Art Helwa reiterates request to Mepa Auditor to investigate Mistra Village application
- Din l-Art Helwa condemns MEPA decision to approve the redevelopment of Mistra Village
- Fort Cambridge – speculation before residents interests
- Yet another instance in a chain of irregularities by MEPA – Qui-si-sana and Tigne Residents
- Din l-Art Helwa urges MEPA to reconsider Safi supermarket permit
- NGO’s condemn MEPA boycott of FAA
- New objection period for the Ta’ Cenc project
- The public awaits an explanation – AD
- Scicluna demands Commission explanation on Malta Freeport extension
- Fort Cambridge project is approved by MEPA
- MEPA publishes a new draft guidance document for EIA
- FAA call for MEPA Board resignation
- MEPA replies to FAA on Ramla development
- The Citizen Betrayed by Government & MEPA
- Din l-Art Helwa suggestions on MEPA reform
- Callous disregard for residents welfare – FAA
This morning Din l-Art Helwa once again reiterated its request to the Mepa auditor Mr Joseph Falzon, to carry out an investigation into the way that the Mistra Village application was processed by Mepa.
The NGO highlighted the fact that the Planning Directorate at Mepa recommended the approval of the application even though it went against the 8-storey policy determined for this site, as well as the Floor Area Ratio policy.
The Directorate also ignored the advice of Mepa’s own Heritage Advisory Committee, which was against the approval of this application.
During consultation meetings at Mepa, Din l-Art Helwa repeatedly requested better quality photomontages of the project than the ones available in the Environmental Impact Assessment. While Mepa agreed to provide them, these images never materialised.
The Mepa board subsequently took the decision to approve the outline application without any photomontages of the latest plans, even though the adverse major visual impact of the project was clearly one of the key concerns of the case, as is also confirmed in the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Loading ...
As far as I know, in this case MEPA did not request an EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) but simply a PDS (Project Description Statement) meaning no wide consultations as in an EIA; but decisions to be taken by the politically appointed ones. We now have the result. I stand to be corrected.