News • February 29 2004

Residents and MEPA dispute foreshore development

Residents of St Julian's are up in arms over the construction of a boundary wall between a hotel and the seashore. They would like the wall to be lower, but have been informed that the developers intend to apply to build the wall higher, with the intention of building rooms on the existing beach concession and opening an open-air restaurant on top.
When the application for full development permission was originally made (PA 2146/03), 25 residents and beach users had petitioned MEPA regarding the height of the boundary wall. According to MEPA’s case officer: “the height of the wall at Sections B and C as marked on the site plan are of a height that unnecessarily reduces the view of the open sea. The party wall also closes in a public beach with a wall running right out to sea, unnecessarily..."
Further to this petition, in the approved plans, the wall was indicated as lowered in places.
Indeed when residents alerted MEPA that the wall was not according to permit, the enforcement officer informed residents that enforcement action had been taken, construction of the wall halted, and developers required to apply for planning permission to continue.
Residents are arguing that the redevelopment of the hotel is the perfect opportunity to correct something that should never have been allowed in the first place. In fact the Structure Plan calls for coastal areas to be opened up to the public, and the outline permission (PA 03711/99) governing the renovation of the hotel requires that 'full and unrestricted public access to the coast' is to be ensured in any detailed planning permission. Since St. Julian's is now becoming so crowded and densely developed residents say this high wall cutting out the sea view for residents and tourists, and so many users of the beach, promenade and quays is hard to accept.
However, Mepa’s PRO Sylvana Debono told MaltaToday: "The wall was built according to approved plans and to replace an old structure which was demolished. As the pictures clearly show, the wall was there previously.
"The plans were opened to the public as is the norm prior to the approval of the project. The present wall is no different from the previous one except in that it is as yet unrendered."