James Debono
“Help stop it now before your property loses value,” says an anonymous letter sent by a Portomaso resident to his neighbours, following an application by the Portomaso developers to build another 65 apartments behind the Cavalieri hotel.
The unprecedented call to arms to defend the remnants of the coastal environment comes a decade after the approval of the controversial Hilton, project amidst protests by environmentalists which culminated in a five-day hunger strike.
While, back then, environmentalists protested against the breach in the historical fortifications and the cheap transfer of public land, residents who eagerly snapped up the apartments now fear a loss of value in their own properties for a similar construction project.
But speaking to MaltaToday a spokesperson for Tumas Group described the letter sent to residents as “excessively alarmist”, promising that the development will only upgrade the area and increase the value of surrounding properties.
The circular claims that sales brochures given to the purchasers of apartments did not show any development in the area. MaltaToday can also confirm that the proposed apartments were never included in the outline or full development.
Developer Ray Fenech told MaltaToday that he regrets that information was not provided to residents before the planning application was presented.
But he now promises that as soon as the visuals are finalised in the next few days, residents will be invited to view superimpositions of the new development with their own eyes.
“We have nothing to hide and residents have every right to ask questions,” Fenech said.
According to Fenech, the project will not prejudice anyone’s position, including that of the Hilton hotel itself, which belongs to the same owners of the project.
“In my opinion the project will upgrade the area and property prices will go up rather than down. If we do otherwise, we will be prejudicing ourselves since we are the owners of the Hilton hotel which has views over the new development.”
He also insisted that the development will be limited to only three storeys, although the local plan already allows none-storey developments.
Asked how the development will affect the remnants of an eighteenth century bastion, the developers’ spokesman replied that the development will not impinge on the fortifications as a distance of six metres will be kept between the new buildings and the fort.
Landscaping measures, which include an artificial lagoon, will also ensure that the new development will upgrade the area.
The development will take place on a site which was fenced off during the original Hilton construction. A sign, saying that the site is being sealed off for the protection of important ecological plant species, was also attached to the fence.
Tumas Group acknowledged that the project was not included in the original outline permit, because the area had been identified by MEPA as a potentially sensitive zone.
But they claim that following several studies, no evidence was ever found that a protected plant species existed on the site. Subsequently the area was identified for development in the local plan.
Just as the Spinola residents before them, the Portomaso residents now fear a degradation of their quality of life.
“One shudders to think of the health hazards to Portomaso residents, daily breathing the cancer generating fumes from the huge amount of construction traffic.”
But Fenech rebutted claims made in the circular that the excavation of 100,000 cubic metres of construction waste will result in 63 trucks passing by existing apartments every day for six months, insisting that excavated waste will be transported on a barge to MEPA’s approved offshore dumping site.
The authors of the circular fear that their lifestyle is at stake.
“Why are we residents expected to suffer this unforeseen development, when we have invested in good faith in this project and bought in to a way of life which will be destroyed in the next three years?”
Quite ironic, on the part of those who had no qualms on the fate of the environment before buying a stake in a controversial property development.
Now, the same people fear that “no sensible people will wish to purchase or invest in Portomaso, once they see this project start.”
Alternattiva Demokratika, which had opposed the project in which the Portomaso residents now live, is also objecting to the new extension.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE