The Mepa Board will soon decide on the application to build 46 new apartments on an ecological zone protected by the original Portomaso permits. The Planning Directorate is recommending approval based on some very dubious conclusions in the DPA report.

The case officer refers to, on page 24, the validity of the original permit conditions, and he quotes one of conditions that “No extension or enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development within or outside the site will be permitted. Any proposals for alterations to the approved plans will only be considered if they contribute to an improvement in the design and quality of the project and all such alterations will require the approval of the Planning Authority.” The emphasis is the case officer’s, who concludes that the Authority left the door open by this condition to consider any extensions if these could improve the design and quality of the project.

By sin of omission, it is nowhere stated that the above condition was attached to the Outline Development Permits for the project issued in July 1995 and February 1996. Nor is it anywhere stated that when Full Development Permits were issued in June 1996 for Phase I (the, hotel/conference centre, the marina, and 310 apartments and marina residences), and in February 1998 (for the rest of the development), the condition was changed to read that “No extensions or enlargements of this development, its individual elements or any related development will be permitted.”

Clearly therefore, flexibility was only allowed at Outline Permit stage when the proposals were still at concept stage, but, on approval of the Full Permits by Mepa, all scope for further developments was definitely excluded.

I am fully confident that the present Mepa Board, with well-known credentials of not taking any nonsense from its Directorates, will fully analyse the report and the recommendations and will ultimately reject this application.

Peter Richards

KENT

ENGLAND