MEPA approves the controversial Mistra Village development
Email Story
Print Story
- MEPA must respect the intelligence of the people
- Din l-Art Helwa urges MEPA to reconsider Safi supermarket permit
- Din l-Art Helwa condemns MEPA decision to approve the redevelopment of Mistra Village
- The public awaits an explanation - AD
- MEPA Development Control Commission resigns en masse
- Killing the goose that lays the golden egg - James A. Tyrrell
- Fort Cambridge and Mistra, communities at risk
- Yet another instance in a chain of irregularities by MEPA - Qui-si-sana and Tigne Residents
- Fort Cambridge - AD supports call for an appeal
- AD backs proposed Fort Cambridge appeal
- Ramblers voice objections over landscape at Mistra Heights
- Ta’ Cenc development plan is expected to be rejected by MEPA
- Ulysses Lodge development appeal decision deferred to November 29th
- Birdlife warns against complacency on Ta’ Cenc development
- Dismissal of Ulysses Lodge appeal urged
Email Story
Print Story
As was widely feared, the Malta Environmental Planning Authority Board has issued the first permit for the highly controversial building of almost 1,000 residential units in a number of eight to eleven storey towers on the site of the former Mistra Village, one of the highest ridges in Malta.
Mepa had informed environmental organisations that it would be meeting to discuss two major development proposals in Xemxija and Tigne during one board meeting, a highly unusual event.
Environmental NGO's and other objectors were only informed of this Mepa board meeting last Friday, less than a week before the scheduled date.
An environmental impact assessment commissioned by the developers shows that this construction proposal in Xemxija was to have numerous negative impacts, not only on the nearby environment, but also on a national level.
The Board put off a decision on the controversial Fort Cambridge apartment blocks project in Tigne, voting 5-3 in favour of a motion moved by board member, architect Joe Farrugia.
Mr Farrugia said that the proposed 23 storey development was "preponderant, too bulky, too big and unacceptable". He suggested that the architects consider making a proposal which respected the 16-storey height limitation in the development brief.















You may if you wish add a comment below.