The developer, whose application for the redevelopment of the former Ulysses Lodge on the hill between the famous Calypso Cave and Ramla beach has been given an outline approval by MEPA, claimed that his proposal would reduce the visual disturbance now created by the Ulysses Lodge buildings.

Plans and photomontages shown to this newspaper illustrate a vastly reduced visual impact.

Following last week’s article “The rape of Ramla”, sources close to the Environment Ministry and MEPA told this newspaper that the new application is roughly on the same footprint of the old development. In fact an application for a further four units, which would have been built on “non-disturbed” land, was rejected by MEPA.

The MEPA spokesman also told this newspaper that since the whole ridge around Ramla Bay is outside the Development Zone, there is no way that the bay will one day be surrounded by villas on high ground, as has been the case in Zebbug and Xaghra where the ridge, it is said, was within the development zone which led to the ridge being all built up.

Some questions, however, remain. Speaking in Parliament on Friday, MP Evarist Bartolo claimed that 10 years ago someone had applied to refurbish a rural building in the same area and was told by MEPA that the building had “scenic value” and his application was rejected. Why, Mr Bartolo asked, has MEPA now approved the building of 21 villas? Was this because the applicant has changed?

The November issue of the Gozo tabloid paper The Edge, which appeared in shops last Sunday, claimed the Ulysses Lodge site used to belong to Gozitan tourism entrepreneur John Portelli who had been in negotiations to set up a Valtur tourist village with 200 beds in a first class hotel and a further 300 in a bungalow-style village.

Funding, Mr Portelli told the newspaper, would have come from the Italian Protocol funds and in fact the venture was discussed between former Italian prime minister Bettino Craxi and the Maltese government.

The paper said that following the change of government in 1987, the whole project was “blocked” and Mr Portelli had to sell the property to third parties.

Gozo sources however told this newspaper that Mr Portelli had not submitted a development application. When questioned, MEPA said it would have to look up the old PAPB files, which it promised to do this week. Mr Portelli, contacted by this newspaper, promised to get back but never did.

The applicant, Emidio Azzopardi, also told this newspaper that MEPA laid down some very stringent conditions, such as the trees to “hide” the villas, which are not allowed to have solar heating panels and any outside lights are to be focused indoors to cut down on the visual disturbance factor.

MEPA was also asked if it accepts applications regarding sites where illegalities are present. The MEPA spokesman replied: “MEPA accepts applications on land where illegalities are present so long as:

In the application there is an indication of the wish to sanction the illegality; and

The application itself entails the removal of the illegality.

“In this case, the application was an outline application for the complete removal of the existing complex and the development of an entirely new tourist complex, which by default means that:

granting permission would not compromise the authority’s ability to enforce the removal of any illegalities; and

granting permission would not allow any further work until a full development permit is granted.

“In addition, the application form only indicates that the architect is to list the existing permits on site, which are then checked by MEPA. The existing building’s permits on site were issued by PAPB at a time when access routes to a new development were not considered to be development in need of a permit.”

The last statement referred to a question whether the roads and parking areas on the site were covered by a permit.

MEPA was also asked why this application was considered by the Major Projects Section.

The MEPA spokesman replied: “This project is a sizeable one with considerable impact on the tourism sector. Both the size of the land, location and nature of the proposed development would lead to it being considered as a major project. As a matter of course, hotel and tourism projects are considered as major projects.”

MEPA was also asked whether it checks to see that when an application says it has a valid commercial licence, it indeed has one.

The MEPA spokesman replied: “Yes. Not only, but before MEPA even considers such an application, a ‘yes in principle’ by the Malta Tourism Authority is required.”

The applicant himself, moreover, showed this paper, a valid police licence for the site dated at the time of the submission of the application.

MEPA also pointed out what the case officer said in his report: “The redevelopment of the site will bring about a certain amount of impacts due to the extensive demolition and construction, but the end result could well be a clear example of the exploitation of derelict development within a sensitive area. The decision to leave the site as is and not allow any more development could very well have been deemed justified given the lack of policy, but this would achieve nothing in terms of an improved environment, and certainly much less in terms of the efficient use of land.”

However, when it was pointed out that another option could have been for the State to buy the land and revert it to its natural state, an option that seems to have been mentioned at one point in the negotiations between the developer and MEPA, the parlous state of public finances seem to have been adduced as enough reason not to pursue this option.