The Reporter programme on TVM has just carried an announcement from the Seabank Hotel that I last week I was incorrect in saying that MEPA should not have granted the permit to the Seabank Hotel because the site was protected as an agricultural priority area, and was an ecologically sensitive area. The Seabank management claim that this is not correct and that the area was in fact earmarked for touristic development. As may be seen from the attached MEPA maps, the site is marked for Enhancement of Areas of Agricultural Value allowing at most Restrained Development The Seabank Hotel mega-project is anything but a restrained development. The coastline map indicates that the area was to remain a predominantly rural coastline. The Mellieha Local Plan states: Uncontrolled intensification of existing uses...could lead to irreversible damage to the sensitive terrestrial and marine ecosystem of the area The Local Plan stipulates that MEPA was to maintain all protection levels by Prohibiting development which adversely affects statutory protected areas. Can the Seabank be said to have a beneficial effect on the Natura 2000 site just 48metres away? Is the Seabank correct in claiming that its site was not protected? Given all these policies in favour of environmental protection, should MEPA have granted this permit? You be the judge of that.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:52:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015