MEPA puts an end to Ghadira beach concession saga

The Planning Directory has withdrawn a controversial application for a beach concession at Ghadira on land granted by government to the Danish-owned Mellieha Holiday Centre on the eve of the 1987 general election.

In May, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's appeal board had already turned down an appeal by the company against a previous refusal of a similar application in 2004.

The Mellieha Holiday Complex, which includes a minimal 0.7% shareholding by the General Workers Union, was given a beach concession on a part of Ghadira Beach by a Labour government in 1986.

When contacted in 2007, Flemming Jensen - the managing director of the Mellieha Holiday Complex - had insisted that the beach concession would not hinder public access.

"I give a 150% guarantee that any Maltese who wants to lie on the beach on his own towel will be able to do so if the project is approved."

He went on to describe the rocky part of the beach, where the company wants to develop as a "scar between two beautiful beaches used mainly by people for BBQs".

The proposed beach concession covered a small stretch of garigue, sand and rocks situated between the first beach opposite the Seabank Hotel, and the larger beach opposite the bird sanctuary.

The proposed beach concession was twice rejected by MEPA because it would hinder public access to the coastline - a principle enshrined in Malta's Structure Plan.

The case officer report also referred to the presence of two cart-ruts in the area. But despite the refusals, the company has persisted in its attempts to appropriate the beach by appealing against MEPA's decision and by presenting yet another application in 2006.

The first application for the proposed beach concession was rejected by MEPA in December 2001. The application proposed the building of stores, toilets, a snack bar and decks for sunbathing. Another application presented in 2002 proposed the building of a kiosk, sunbathing decks, showers and a jetty, occupying 3,000 square metres of land. The application was rejected in September 2004 but an appeal against MEPA's refusal was only concluded in May 2012.

In the appeal, the developer's architect insisted that the proposal did not include any fixed structures and therefore had no impact on the environment. 

In his submissions, the developers' architect insisted that it seems very ironic that this space is made use of in a completely uncontrollable manner by the public at large, with irrevocable damage to the fauna and flora of the area, and this is in fact permitted, while this attempt to clean up and monitor the state of this beach section in a controlled manner is discouraged.

On its part, the authority insisted that the project would restrict public access and would harm the environment. The developers later presented another application.

A total of 25 sittings were dedicated to this appeal between 2004 and 2012, with the appellant arguing that he was awaiting a decision on another application presented in 2006.

In October 2011, the tribunal told the applicant that he had failed to submit any information to MEPA on the application submitted in 2006. To this, the applicant replied that it was MEPA, which failed to submit any information requested by him due to a pending decision on the Mellieha bypass.

Finally in May, the Tribunal confirmed MEPA's earlier refusal of the application, insisting that it was in breach of the structure plan policies.

The case officer's report on this application stated that the development would result in the destruction of a pair of 100-metre cart-ruts. It also states that the proposed jetty is not acceptable as it will introduce a new safety risk for swimmers and will alter the coastline, thus potentially affecting the hydrodynamics of the beach.

In February 2006, architect Edwin Mintoff presented a brand new application for a beach concession in the same area. The application has now been withdrawn by the Planning Directorate. The reason given by MEPA for withdrawing the application was that the developers had failed to present the required information to MEPA in the required timeframe.