Din l-Art Helwa reiterates request to Mepa Auditor to investigate Mistra Village application
Email Story
Print Story
- Din l-Art Helwa condemns MEPA decision to approve the redevelopment of Mistra Village
- Din l-Art Helwa urges MEPA to reconsider Safi supermarket permit
- NGO’s condemn MEPA boycott of FAA
- MEPA approves the controversial Mistra Village development
- Din l-Art Helwa suggestions on MEPA reform
- New objection period for the Ta’ Cenc project
- Fort Cambridge - speculation before residents interests
- The public awaits an explanation - AD
- MEPA publishes a new draft guidance document for EIA
- Yet another instance in a chain of irregularities by MEPA - Qui-si-sana and Tigne Residents
- Email Story
- Print Story
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.
|
|
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
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.
You may if you wish add a comment below.