The Mepa board yesterday approved the sanctioning of a number of changes effected at the Seabank Hotel in its almost completed €32 million refurbishment after concluding that most of the changes were minimal and many of them internal changes, and that the height, building envelope and room and parking space numbers have not been changed.

Introducing the changes, an architect for the hotel said most of them have been asked for by the tour operator when it got involved in the refurbishment project. Most of the changes intend to enable the hotel work better and more efficiently, increase landscaping and reallocate space.

The changes are the following:

• The outdoor pool has been shrunk in size and the indoor pool has been moved out, taking up some of the space originally allocated to the main pool. This second pool will be an indoor pool nevertheless since it will be covered with a wooden ceiling and can also be used in winter;

• The entertainment area goes up one floor from the basement level;

• The main restaurant is reshaped;

• The spa area moved out of the basement and is now an independent structure near the ‘indoor’ pool outside the hotel building;

• The parking area, which is below road level due to the hill by the side of the hotel, goes up one level and is condensed in three-quarters of the original area without losing parking spaces;

• The reservoirs have been doubled in size so as to enable the hotel undertake a revolutionary project by Marco Cremona so as to reuse most of the water including what is called ‘black water’;

• The number of guest rooms remains the same but eight of them at first floor level had to be moved out from on top of the kitchens and relocated on the ground floor;

• The kitchen and the food preparation area have been rearranged and are now on one level instead of on two;

• The plant room originally was to be two levels down but has been moved one level up and its top will be landscaped with trees and plants;

• Even the Enemalta substation has had its position moved.

The directorate official explained to the board how the directorate had worked with the applicant on all these changes and on others proposed by the hotel but rejected by it. The directorate considers these changes to be minor as neither the footprint, nor the height of the original permit had been changed.

This was not how the board saw it, however, and a lively discussion ensued.

First off the mark was Judge Giovanni Bonello who pointed out that the application had first asked to make changes but then the application became one to sanction the changes that had been made. It is also clear that some of the changes had already been made when the application was submitted.

Judge Bonello disagreed that the changes were ‘minor’.

Charles Mercieca asked for more details about the reverse osmosis plant and the recycling of used water.

Silvio Debono for the hotel said the RO plant had always been there. The hotel has now invested in recycling through the help of Marco Cremona and it intends to clean and filter used water so that it can even be drank. As regards some comments that had been made on a cesspit, this in truth is a holding tank, rather than a cesspit.

Yet another discussion focused on moving the indoor pool outside and delved on whether this was a minor change or a major one. The hotel explained to the board that the pool area has remained the same but it is now split in two pools.

Mr Debono volunteered the information that the final plan as approved by the board a short time ago had two empty levels on top of the car park. This information seemed new to the members of the board but Mr Debono said that no less than nine plans had been drawn up until the final approval.

Deputy chairman Franco Montesin said that although the project is a nice one, the board is still being faced with a fait accompli. He then added that the permit has a €100,000 bank guarantee and asked what would be the amount to be withdrawn as a sanctioning fine.

Roderick Galdes, MP, pointed out that the footprint had not been changed and that such changes always happen. The hotel has been enlarged (to become Malta’s largest hotel) in just one year: It would have been impossible to stop and wait for each change to be approved.

Mr Montesin disagreed: Mepa comes down like a ton of bricks on people who put up a wooden balcony instead of a metal one (or vice-versa).

Mr Debono, rather anxious, said that the hotel had applied for changes through this application in 2010 and the board was only considering it now. The refurbishment cost €32 million and 5,000 people were employed on the construction.

Joe Falzon argued that if a house changes three walls, that is a significant change but here no 100 rooms or an extra storey have been added. The concept of sanctioning was approved by Parliament and within certain conditions, such as that the building envelope is not changed.

Mepa CEO Ian Stafrace pointed out that the big bank guarantee was due to the sensitivity of the area. He also pointed out that the applicant had fully cooperated with the authority.

Mepa chairman Austin Walker disagreed that Mepa tackles big applicants and small differently. However, the authority must also be flexible since in this case the building envelope had not been touched. It is also bad that a 2010 application takes all this time to come to board level.

Dr Stafrace said the application had not been waiting on some shelf for nothing. There were negotiations going on all the time.

Judge Bonello, who later became the only one to vote against the application, said the issue is fundamental. What was done was illegal and Mepa is now approving sanctioning.

Mr Walker disagreed that Mepa was being taken for a ride. There were cases where Mepa refused to sanction.

The application was approved, with Judge Bonello against.

The Mepa board also approved an IPPC permit for Amino Chemicals Ltd of the Marsa Industrial Estate.

An audit in May 2010 had found no non-compliances and the company is now looking forward to the next round of audits that is due in October 2013. This application also included the IPPC conditions to join the two sites occupied by the company to facilitate loading and waste treatment.