Island Hotels refute allegations

Island Hotels Group, developers of the Golden Sands project, last week issued a statement refuting allegations made by Alan Deidun in his column "The Green Whistle-blower" in The Sunday Times of June 22.

"As he did in another article written on May 28, Mr Deidun is writing blatant lies about the Golden Sands project, in spite of the fact that the correct facts were brought to his attention as well as to the attention of Nature Trust following that article," the statement said.

On May 28, according to the statement, Mr Deidun stated that the part demolition of the Golden Sands had taken place without a permit. In a press release issued the following day, Island Hotels Group had explained that a permit was issued for the part demolition of the existing hotel, on February 28, 2002 (permit no PA 04246/01). The demolition that was carried out was totally in accordance to the permit issued in February of last year, Island Hotels again insisted.

During the EIS (Environment Impact Statement) public hearing held on May 29, during which members of Nature Trust were present, Winston V. Zahra, Island Hotels Group managing director, had explained that the part demolition had actually taken place in accordance with the permit the group held from MEPA, and called on Nature Trust to desist from making statements without checking their facts.

The statement added that Mr Zahra also took time, after the meeting, to explain in person to Nature Trust representatives that the Group had a permit which allowed the company to partly demolish the building.

"In spite of all this, Mr Deidun went ahead, again publishing blatant lies about the Golden Sands project, trying to give the impression that there is some sort of collusion between Island Hotels Group and MEPA," the statement continued.

Mr Zahra stated that the whole EIS process was carried out in the most holistic and professional way possible, with the involvement of various experts. The result was an extensive 800-page document that studied and safeguarded against any possible form of abuse during the development and operation of the new property once it is open.

As to Mr Deidun's statement that "by scouring the old footprint and the new footprint, one can roughly detect a substantial increase in the area gobbled up", the statement said that the footprint of the old property was 7,100 sq metres, while the footprint of the new property will be 7,050 sq metres.

Mr Deidun in his article last Sunday also questioned the timeframes between the public hearing and the issuing of the permit for the demolition of the whole building, "when he knows very well that these were adhered to according to MEPA regulations". He also stated that "the developers have no intention of contributing towards the restoration of the natural environment of the area, such as the dilapidated sand dunes".

This again is another twisting of facts, Island Hotels said. "If Mr Deidun bothered to check what happened at the public hearing for the issuing of the permit which took place on June 5, he would have realised that there is a condition for the developers to make a community contribution of Lm50,000."

Mr Deidun also claimed that "the case in question has all the hallmarks of fast-track processing". The statement asks: "What is wrong in processing an application for a major project which will create over 200 jobs at construction time and 220 jobs for the operation and injecting Lm12 million into the Maltese economy? Is it a crime for the developer to work in the greatest co-operation with MEPA to process the application in the shortest possible time?"

Mr Zahra said this situation is "totally unacceptable and only goes to project Nature Trust as an organisation which is not credible. It is not right for people like Mr Deidun, in the name of organisations such as Nature Trust, to make unfounded comments about projects. Such organisations have a role to play in our society, however they have to go about their business in a credible, professional and factual way", the statement concluded.

In his reaction to the statement, Mr Deidun said that no development should be granted fast processing, no matter how much employment and money is generated. "Public hearings should be held for the public to come up with their objections - how is MEPA going to find the time to take any objections into consideration if permits are issued only a week after the public hearing?" he asked, adding that Mr Zahra expects the public to read an 800-page document in just one week.

As for refuting the claim that the developers had no permit for partial demolition to start, Mr Deidun said that last Sunday he wrote: "How was it that MEPA granted the permit for a partial demolition of the old hotel building to start even before the project had been supposedly granted?" He said he was contesting the reason behind the issuing of the permit by MEPA, not whether the permit was issued or not. "Issuing a permit for demolition before the granting of the actual development permit is granted is anomalous for our country," he remarked.

Mr Deidun said that what had appeared in The Malta Independent on May 28 was a press release issued by Nature Trust, not an article written personally by him.

He added that the figures for the new footprint were not given at the public hearing and asked: "How is footprint going to decrease if new buldings will be made up of separate blocks rather than adjoining ones and the same bedding capacity will be kept?"

Mr Deidun also asked whether any conditions were attached to how the Lm50,000 in community should be spent. "It does not necessarily mean that it could be spent on ecological restoration works such as on the sand dune, but could be spent on anything."

After MEPA last week unanimously approved the Golden Sands project in detail, it was learned that the Lm50,000 will be spent on a playground at Manikata, improving the cultural heritage, the surrounding parking areas, a beach management project and the restoration of a military outpost at beach level.