Fort Campbell f’Selmun: abbandunata, vvandalizzata u fi stat ta’ periklu

Dal-għodu kont Fort Campbell, limiti ta’ Selmun flimkien ma Luke Caruana kandidat ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika għall-Kunsill Lokali tal-Mellieħa u ma Ralph Cassar, Segretarju Ġenerali tal-partit.

Fort Campbell mhux biss ġiet traskurata u żviluppat ħsara kbira, kkawżata miż-żmien u mill-elementi, imma hu ċar li ġiet vandalizzata ukoll.

Ir-ritratt juri parti minn Fort Campbell li saret gorboġ! Sfrondaw is-soqfa u ġibdu kollox magħhom.

Din il-forti nbniet mill-Inġliżi fis-snin tletin, ftit qabel ma faqqgħet it-tieni gwerra, bħala parti mit-tħejjija għad-difiża tat-tramuntana ta’ Malta minn attakki mill-ajru jew mill-baħar.

Għalkemm relattivament inbniet fi żmien riċenti, din il-fortizza xorta tifforma parti mill-wirt storiku tagħna. Minflok ma nħalluha tibqa’ tiġi vvandalizzat, sakemm possibilment tinqered għal kollox, huwa obbligu tagħna bħala pajjiż li nirranġaw il-ħsara u li din l-opra tal-gwerra nikkonvertuha fi strument għall-paċi. Strument għall-ħarsien u l-istudju tal-ambjent rurali kif ukoll ċentru biex immexxu l-quddiem l-eko-turiżmu.

X’ħin kont Fort Campbell dal-għodu kien hemm ħafna nies, bil-familji. Tkellimt ma uħud minnhom. Mhux kollha huma konxji mill-gravità tas-sitwazzjoni. Bil-ħafna tfal li kien hemm jiġru min-naħa għall-oħra, l-obbligu tal-Gvern li jieħu passi immedjati, biex min qiegħed jirrikreja ruħu hemm ma jkunx espost għall-periklu, hu ta’ prijorità immedjata.

Imma f’dan il-pajjiż dejjem l-istess. Forsi, min jaf, niċċaqalqu meta tiġri disgrazzja kbira. Imma dakinnhar, għal min ilaqqata jkun tard wisq.

Il-Fortizza Delimara qed titmermer

 

It-Times of Malta qed tirrapporta dwar l-istat tal-fortizza Delimara li qed titmermer.
Illum hi abbandunata. Għamlet xi żmien li kienet użata anke bħala razzett tal-ħnieżer!
Daqshekk napprezzaw il-wirt tagħna. M’għandniex biex niftaħru!

(Ir-ritratt li qed nirriproduċi hu meħud mit-Times online)

 

Local plans, and not regional

grand-harbouraerial

MEPA has embarked on a process which will lead to a revision of the seven existing  Local Plans. Five were approved in 2006. Two of them were approved earlier: the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan (1995) and the Grand Harbour Local Plan (2002).

With the exception of the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan (which regulates  Birżebbuġa, Marsaxlokk and their surrounding areas) all the Local Plans cover extensive areas. The Structure Plan, approved in 1990 and currently subject to revision, had identified the need for 24 Local Plans addressing urban areas, as well as other unspecified plans for Rural Conservation Areas. Initially when MEPA approved the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan it started along this path but then it opted for plans which are more regional than local in nature.

Local Plans are necessary in order that planning policy is appropriately applied at a local level where one can focus on practical considerations. Though there may be overlaps between Local Plans covering similar areas there will also be variations resulting from the specific nature of the different localities. There will be inevitable similarities between, for example, a Local Plan addressing Valletta and Floriana on one hand and another one addressing the Three Cities due to the fact that both contain vast stretches of fortifications.  However the planning issues arising may also lead to different considerations both in respect of what is to be prohibited as well as in what ought to be encouraged.

Local Plans are not neutral policy instruments. Departing from the common need to ensure a continuous maintenance programme for the fortifications (which programme is currently in hand)  Local Plans may explore different potential uses to which the fortifications in two completely different areas may be put. This would be dependent on the infrastructural services in the area  and on the impacts generated by the potential use  on the surrounding amenities and localities. It would be much easier to ensure that this is done through two separate local plans, one specifically addressing Valletta and Floriana and the other addressing just the Three Cities.

It is not just an issue of fortifications. The large number of vacant properties, currently totalling  over 72,000 cannot be addressed adequately at a regional level. Different policies and different targets have to be identified at a local level as both the causes as well as the extent of the problem vary from one locality to another.

Boundaries of a number of Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs) were substantially revised in 2006 on the understanding that it is better to limit the extent of a UCA to that which is necessary and essential. Consequently it should stand to reason that a smaller UCA is much better to regulate and monitor.

A number of vacant properties lie within UCAs as it costs much more to bring such properties to an adequate state compatible to modern standards of living. This is an area which has already been explored in the last years with various fiscal incentives being offered to encourage rehabilitaton and the reuse of such properties. Much more needs to be done. The revision of the Local Plans is another opportunity to re-examine the way forward in tackling the ever increasing number of vacant properties. The proposed policies must however be focused and local in nature as otherwise they will fail to have any impact at all.

As emphasised by eNGOs  the Local Plans should also be an opportunity to consider the integration of environmental policy and its applicability at a local level. Whilst all environmental policy is of relevance to our localities two particular areas easily spring to mind: air quality and noise pollution.

Both air quality and noise control standards can be undoubtedly upgraded if action is taken at a local level. Traffic generated is a major contributor to both. Heavy traffic through residential areas has to be reduced. If the Local Plans address this issue they will be simultaneously contributing to a better air quality and less acoustic pollution in urban areas.

From declarations made in the past weeks it is obvious that one of the controversial issues to be tackled, (most probably in a plan addressing rural areas) would be agro-tourism.  This is a very sensitive matter . If the point of departure is to seek to establish new development zones on the pretext of tourism than such proposals would be unacceptable. If on the other hand such a Rural Plan addresses the use of existing  agricultural holdings aiming to maximise the use of their existing footprint, provide a different touristic experience as well as  provide alternative or additional employment opportunities to our agricultural communities then there is room for considerable discussion.

The Local Plans to be produced will have an impact on our quality of life for the next ten years. It is hence imperative to not only ensure a high level of participation in the consultation process but that the resulting proposals are given due consideration.

This article was published in The Times of Malta, Saturday August 10, 2013