A number of residents together with Moviment Graffitti have appealed a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal green-lighting the construction of a waterpolo pitch and adjacent facilities along the Marsascala promenade.
The decision was taken last month, confirming the approval of the permit for the project which, the residents say, will negatively impact the neighbouring residences as well as the marine area.
The €4.2 million government project features the construction of a waterpolo pitch, clubhouse and restaurant next to Triq is-Salini.
Twelve residents, joining forces with Moviment Graffitti in a bid to challenge approval of the development permit, arguing that the tribunal's decision is vitiated.
In their appeal, they said that the chairman of the tribunal, Joseph Borg, was employed at the Planning Authority that was a party in the proceedings and had, in fact, sought authorisation from management to utilise his leave allowance whilst chairing tribunal hearings.
His position meant that the tribunal could not guarantee an independent and impartial hearing. Borg had flatly turned down a request for recusal three times.
Furthermore, the tribunal decision was not in line with local plans and relevant policies.
Land reclamation....for a pool!
The projected “massive” development, involving extensive reclamation along the bay for the sake of constructing a freshwater pool in the sea, was “totally anomalous.”
Moreover, the area in question was classified as a yacht marina site and any development along those lines would have to be preceded by appropriate studies, including an underwater archaeological survey, an environmental impact assessment and financial feasibility checks.
According to the applicable policy, any maritime-related shore-based facilities can only be allowed if they complemented a yacht marina and provided they did not negatively affect nearby residences.
Yet in this case, there was no proof that a yacht marina needed a freshwater pool nor any explanation as to how such an invasive structure, used only for three months during summer, could promote or complement the yachting and marina industry.
On the other hand, residents would have to suffer heavier traffic, increased noise and loss of parking spaces, the appellants argued.
The tribunal had also failed to abide by the specific objective of SPED (the planning law) since the proposed pool meant that there would be less space reserved for a yacht marina within the somewhat limited size of Marsascala bay.
The project, as approved, would likely bring about a “knock-on effect” because more space would have to be taken up at sea for the setting up of a yacht marina.
And this went directly against the strategic plan for environment and development, the appellants said.
Missing documents
The residents complained that important documents, including photomontages, accessible to the Planning Authority were not equally accessible to interested third parties and the public in general, meaning that the parties lacked equality of arms.
The tribunal also failed to seriously evaluate possible alternatives to the project and the visual impact the development would have on the area.
The decision by the review tribunal was also vitiated because proper procedure was not followed, the appellants claimed, explaining that a vote had not been taken to delegate approval of amended plans by the chairperson of the Planning Board.
Registered objectors and the general public were not notified and therefore the process was tainted by a lack of transparency, the court was told.
In its conclusions the tribunal went directly against expert studies and testimonies which clearly showed how the planned development would “obliterate” certain marine habitats and species in the area.
The tribunal had misquoted experts, twisted their version and discarded other testimonies without reason, argued the appellants, voicing concern that such a decision “was simply a confirmation of the Planning Authority’s fait accompli.”
Lawyer Claire Bonello signed the appeal application.