Riforma tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar

Il-Prim Ministru Robert Abela, fid-diskors tiegħu tal-Ewwel ta’ Mejju, qal li ser jagħti bidu għal riforma fil-qasam tal-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art. Ftit li xejn ta’ dettalji. Fi kliemu, imma, kien ċar li kien qed jipprova jsewwi l-ħsara li rriżultat mill-kritika li saret f’dawn il-jiem minn żewġ Sindki Laburisti. Wieħed minnhom (Christian Zammit – Sindku tax-Xagħra) irriżenja, għax xebbgħuh. L-ieħor, Conrad Borg Manché, Sindku tal-Gżira, baqa’ għaddej. Idu msaħħa riżultat ta’ rebħa fil-Qrati li kellu kontra l-Awtorità tal-Artijiet u d-deċiżjoni tagħha li tieħu lura biċċa mill-ġnien tal-Gżira biex tagħmel il-wisa’ għal pompa tal-petrol.

Bħas-soltu, l-Partit Laburista jipprova jingħoġob ma’ kulħadd. Il-Mexxej tal-Partit Laburista ifaħħar l-impenn ambjentali taż-żewġ sindki. Imma oħrajn fit-tmexxija tal-partit, fl-istess ħin, kontinwament jiddefendu lil min qed jagħmlilhom xogħolhom bħala sindki diffiċli.

Il-problema bażika tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hi li kontinwament tinjora ir-regoli tal-ippjanar tagħha stess. Għal din ir-raġuni, din il-ġimgħa stess, il-Qorti tal-Appell ħassret żewġ deċiżjonijiet oħra tal-istess Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Ir-residenti, kif ukoll uħud mill-kunsilli lokali, kontinwament qed isemmgħu leħinhom kontra kull xorta ta’ deċiżjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-permess għall-iżvilupp mill-ġdid tal-villaġġ tal-Mistra kien ħareġ għall-ewwel darba fl- 2013 għal żvilupp b’għoli ta’ tnax-il sular. Ir-residenti opponew it-tiġdid ta’ dan il-permess minħabba li dan mhux kompatibbli mar-regoli tal-ippjanar li huma fis-seħħ illum. It-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (EPRT) ma aċċettax l-appell tar-residenti, imma l-Qorti tal-Appell waqqfet kollox u bagħtet il-file lura biex il-każ ikun eżaminat mill-ġdid. Dan, il-Qorti għamlitu, għax ikkonkludiet li t-talbiet tar-residenti ma ġewx eżaminati sewwa mill-EPRT.

Fid-dawl ta’ din id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti tal-Appell ikun floku li wieħed jistaqsi “il-għala, dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet tal-ippjanar, kontinwament jinjoraw ir-regoli”? Xi snin ilu kien l- Ombudsman innifsu li wasal għall-istess konklużjoni.

Dan il-kaz mhux xi eċċezzjoni!

Nhar l-Erbgħa, l-Qorti tal-Appell, tat deċiżjoni oħra, din id-darba dwar żvilupp fil-Mellieħa. Aċċettat appell li sar mill-Kunsill Lokali tal-Mellieħa u ħassret permess ta’ żvilupp għal-lukanda (bil-faċilitajiet anċillari għaliha) liema permess kien inħareg f’żona fejn dan l-iżvilupp ma jistax isir ħlief f’ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali. Din il-lukanda ta’ tmien sulari hi konnessa mal-interessi tal-iżviluppatur Għawdxi Joseph Portelli.

L-applikazzjoni għall-ewwel kien hemm il-parir dwarha (bil-miktub) biex din tkun rifjutata. Imma l-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp ma qablitx ma’ dan u approvat il-ħruġ ta’ permess. Dan il-permess ġie ikkonfermat ukoll mit-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar  (EPRT). L-EPRT l-anqas ma qabel li joħroġ ordni biex ma jsirx xogħol fuq is-sit sakemm jinqata’ l-appell. Riżultat ta’ hekk, il-lukanda li issa tilfet il-permess għax dan ġie mħassar mill-Qorti tal-Appell hi issa lesta u mibnija! Ser ikunu meħtieġa alterazzjonijiet sostanzjali u probabbilment partijiet minn dik li hi lukanda jkollhom jitwaqqgħu minħabba li dan l-iżvilupp ibbenefika minn bonus ta’ żewġ sulari extra li jingħataw għall-iżvilupp tal-lukandi! Jiġifieri dawn kellhom żieda ta’ żewġ sulari fuq dak li hu normali f’dawn iż-żoni! Dawn iż-żewġ sulari ma’ jistgħux ikunu approvati f’ċirkustanzi oħra. GħaIhekk ikollhom jaqgħu!

Dan kollu juri kemm hu possibli li bir-regoli tal-ippjanar tal-lum (anke jekk hemm bosta difetti fihom) xorta hu possibli li wieħed jasal għal deċiżjonijiet raġjonevoli kif uriet il-Qorti tal-Appell!  Ovvjament id-deċiżjonijiet ikunu raġjonevoli jekk dawk li jeħduhom ikun kapaci li jimxu mar-regoli dejjem.

L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art hu għan-nies. Kif qed nagħtu każ tan-nies fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art li għandna? Jekk insegwu l-kazijiet diversi hekk kif dawn jiżviluppaw, hu ċar li dawk li huma maħtura biex jassiguraw li l-affarijiet jimxu sewwa, fl-interess tan-nies u tal-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom, qed iħarbtu kollox. Dan hu ċar meta wieħed jara d-diversi deċiżjonijiet tal-Qorti,mhux biss dawk li nsemmi hawn fuq, imma bosta oħra ukoll.

Huwa dan li jeħtieġ li jkun indirizzat minn riforma tal-proċess tal-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art. Jeħtieġ nassiguraw li dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet ikunu nies kapaċi jiddeċiedu sewwa: konsistenti u skond ir-regoli fis-seħħ. X’nambuhom ir-regoli jekk b’mod konsistenti jiġu injorati?

Din hi r-riforma meħtieġa fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art.

pubblikat fuq Illum:14 ta’ Mejju 2023

Reforming the Planning Authority

Prime Minister Robert Abela, during his May Day speech, hinted that he will embark on a land use planning reform. His speech was very scant on details. It was however clearly an exercise in damage control after the Labour Party has faced sharp criticism from two of its own Mayors, one of whom (Christian Zammit – Xagħra Mayor) has quit the party in disgust. The other, Conrad Borg Manché, Gżira Mayor, soldiers on. His hand has been strengthened as a result of the Gżira Court case win against the Lands Authority and its decision to reduce the size of the Gżira public garden to make way for a fuel station.

The Labour Party is, as always, running with the hares and simultaneously hunting with the hounds. Party Leader Robert Abela lauds his “environmentalist” mayors. Others within the Labour Party hierarchy, however, are busy defending those who are making their life miserable.

The problem with the Planning Authority is that basically it is ignoring its own policies which it is stretching well beyond any elastic limit. Only this week, for this very reason, the Court of Appeal has cancelled two land use planning decisions.

Residents, and some local councils, are up in arms against all sorts of decisions being taken by the Planning Authority. The permit relative to the Mistra Village re-development was originally issued by the Planning Authority in 2013 for a 12-floor high-rise development. The renewal of the development permit was contested by residents on the grounds of its incompatibility with currently existing planning policies. The Environment Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) shot down the residents’ appeal but the Court of Appeal thought otherwise and sent the case back to the drawing board. The Court of Appeal has pointed out that the EPRT had not examined adequately the applicable planning policies to ascertain or otherwise the residents’ claims.

In view of this Court of Appeal decision it is pertinent to ask as to why those taking planning decisions continuously ignore planning policies? Some years back it was the Ombudsman himself who had arrived at a similar conclusion.

This is not a one-off case.

Last Wednesday the Court of Appeal delivered another decision relative to a development in Mellieħa and accepted the Mellieħa Local Councl’s appeal to cancel a development permit for a hotel with related amenities in an area where the local plan forbids hotel development, except in extraordinary circumstances. This eight-floor hotel is linked to the extensive commercial interests of Gozitan construction magnate Joseph Portelli.

The original written recommendation for a refusal of the application was overturned by the Planning Commission. The development permission wassubsequently confirmed by the EPRT. The EPRT also refused to issue an order to halt construction until the planning appeal is determined. As a result, the hotel whose permit has now been repealed is now completed! It will have to be extensively altered and possibly parts of it will now have to be demolished as the constructed hotel even benefitted from an additional two-floor bonus over and above the prevailing permissible height! These two floors are not permissible in other circumstances and will then have to be demolished.

All this proves that even on the basis of existing planning policies (which need substantial improvement) one can arrive at reasonable decisions as clearly demonstrated by the Court of Appeal, if only those running the show are capable of strictly observing the rules.

Land use planning is for people.  How are people and their needs factored in our land use planning? Following the various land use planning cases as they develop, it is clear that land use planning is hijacked by those appointed to run the show. This is crystal clear when one examines the different decisions of the Court of Appeal. This refers not just to the decisions referred to above, but to many others too!

This is what a reform of the planning process should address: ensuring that the land use planning decision takers are capable of taking decisions which are both consistent and in line with existing policy. What do we need policy for if it is consistently ignored?

This is the reform required in land use planning.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 May 2023

Qalbu taħarqu għall-ambjent qal Robert Abela !

Mill-ftit li smajt mid-diskors ta’ Robert Abela illum fil-Belt, qed jipprova jwassal messaġġ ċar li qalbu taħarqu għall-ambjent.

Qed jipprova jsewwi l-ħsara li saret fil-każ ta’ Conrad Borg Manché fil-Gżira u Christian Zammit fix-Xagħra, żewġ Sindki Laburisti, bil-banda mal-partit.

Conrad jgħidilna li hu biss qiegħed jirrappreżenta l-prinċipji Laburisti bħalissa.

Christian min-naħa l-oħra jgħidilna li l-partit qed jipprostitwixxi ruħu mal-iżviluppaturi.

Waqt li Robert Abela jgħidilna fuq kemm serikollna spazji miftuħa, fl-istess ħin juża’ l-qawwa kollha tal-Gvern biex jeqred il-ġnien tal-Gżira.

Kellha tkun il-Qorti b’sentenza tal-Imħallef Wenzu Mintoff li l-Gvern ġie miżmum (għalissa) milli jeqred il-ġnien tal-Gżira.

Impjant nuklejari fi Sqallija?

Matul il-kampanja elettorali riċenti tal-2022, fl-Italja, fid-dibattitu politiku, reġgħet infetħet id-diskussjoni dwar il-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija nuklejari.

Matteo Salvini, presentement Ministru għall-Infrastruttura u t-Transport, apparti li hu ukoll Deputat Prim Ministru fil-Gvern ta’ koalizzjoni Taljan, emfasizza, li, fl-isfond tal-kriżi enerġetika kurrenti l-Italja għandha tikkunsidra mill-ġdid il-politika tagħha dwar l-impjanti nuklejari.

Il-votanti Taljani darbtejn esprimew ruħhom b’mod ċar dwar ir-rejatturi nuklejari fuq art Taljana. L-aħħar darba li għamlu dan kien f’referendum li sar f’Ġunju 2011, ftit wara d-diżastru nuklejari li seħħ f’Fukushima l-Ġappun f’Marzu 2011. Dakinnhar, 94 fil-mija ta’ dawk li vvutaw għażlu projibizzjoni totali ta’ kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari fl-Italja.

Il-kriżi kurrenti tal-enerġija qed isservi ta’ pressjoni fuq kulħadd biex jinstabu sorsi alternattivi ta’ enerġija bi prezz li nifilħuħ. L-enerġija nuklejari hemm marbuta magħha spejjes moħbija li rari ħafna jittieħdu in konsiderazzjoni kull meta l-materja tkun soġġett ta’ dibattitu politiku: l-iskart nuklejari ġġenerat kif ukoll ir-riskji inerenti, marbuta ma’ ħsara jew funzjonament ħażin  tal-impjanti nuklejari.  L-impatt tal-inċidenti nuklejari fi Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania Stati Uniti – 28 ta’ Marzu 1979), Chernobyl (Ukrajina – 26 t’April 1986) u Fukushima (Ġappun – 11 ta’ Marzu 2011) huma xhieda biżżejjed tal-konsegwenzi li jista’ jkollna niffaċċjaw meta tkun ikkunsidrata l-għażla ta’ enerġija nuklejari.

Il-mod kif niddisponu mill-iskart nuklejari hu suġġett għal dibattitu kontinwu fuq livell globali. L-ispiża biex dan isir hi waħda sostanzjali, u dan b’referenza kemm għall-ispiża ambjentali kif ukoll għal dik finanzjarja.  Fil-passat riċenti, viċin tagħna, l- eko-mafja irmiet kull xorta ta’ skart, inkluż skart nuklejari, fil-Baħar Mediterranean. Dan għamlitu fi 42 vapur differenti, kollha mgħarrqa f’partijiet differenti tal-Mediterran. Il-kaz speċifiku tal-vapur Kunsky mgħarraq ftit il-barra mill-kosta tal-Kalabrija, kien ġie żvelat mill-pentiti tal- ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra, Francesco Fonti u Carmine Schiavone, snin ilu fix-xhieda tagħhom lill-awtoritajiet Taljani.

Bosta mir-riskji tekniċi tal-impjanti nuklejari illum il-ġurnata kważi nstab tarf tagħhom u dan minħabba l-avvanżi kontinwi fit-teknoloġija. Hemm iżda eċċezzjoni waħda! Kif ġie żvelat bħala riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima, il-forzi naturali jibqgħu kontinwament bit-tmun f’idejhom!  F’Fukushima, għal darba oħra ġie ikkonfermat li r-riskji marbuta mat-terrimoti mhux la kemm insibu tarf tagħhom! Dan kollu  għandu relevanza kbira għad-dibattitu dwar il-kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari wara biebna, f’teritorju Taljan.

Fl-2011 l-awtoritajiet Taljani kienu indikaw li s-sit fi Sqallija li probabbilment jintuża biex fuqu jinbena impjant nuklejari qiegħed mal-kosta tan-nofsinnhar ħdejn il-lokalità ta’ Palma di Montechiaro. Dan ikun madwar 100 kilometru fil-Majjistral ta’ Għawdex.

Kif nafu, Sqallija hi zona fejn it-terrimoti huma frekwenti. Apparti t-terrimoti frekwenti “żgħar” li  nisimgħu dwarhom u li xi kultant nindunaw bihom matul is-sena, fi Sqallija seħħew tnejn mill-agħar terrimoti li qatt laqgħtu lill-Ewropa. Fl-1693 terrimot fix-Xlokk ta’ Sqallija kellu qawwa ta’ 7.4 filwaqt li f’Messina fl-1908 terrimot ieħor laħaq qawwa ta’ 7.1 fuq l-iskala Mercalli. Dawn iż-żewġ terrimoti ħolqu ħerba u wasslu għat-telfien ta’ bosta ħajjiet. L-infrastruttura ukoll sofriet danni kbar!

Id-deċiżjoni dwar jekk il-Gvern Taljan jerġax jipprova jmur lejn in-nuklejari biex jiġġenera l-elettriku fl-Italja mhux ser tittieħed f’data fil-qrib. Imma, meta jibdew jinġabru l-firem għal referendum fuq is-suġġett ma tantx ikun baqa’ żmien biex għal darba’oħra nqiesu sewwa x’nistgħu nagħmlu.

F’Malta, l-interess tagħna hu dwar l-impatt  fuqna ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija viċin ta’ Palma di Montechiaro f’kaz li dan l-impjant jiżviluppa l-ħsara jew għal xi raġuni jibda jaħdem b’mod erratiku.  

Tajjeb li nżommu f’moħħna li minħabba l-emissjonijiet radjuattivi riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima kellha sseħħ evakwazzjoni sħiħa f’distanza ta’ 200 kilometru mill-impjant nuklejari. Għawdex, kif tafu, hu inqas minn 100 kilometru mill-kosta ta’ Sqallija. Daqshekk huma ċari l-konsegwenzi għalina ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija!

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 15 ta’ Jannar 2023

A nuclear reactor in Sicily?

During the recent 2022 electoral campaign, the issue of nuclear energy in neighbouring Italy has resurfaced in the political debate.

Matteo Salvini, currently Minister for the Infrastructure and Transport, in addition to being Deputy Prime Minister of the ruling Italian coalition government, is on record as emphasising that, given the current energy crisis, he considers that it would be expedient to resurrect the nuclear proposal.

Italian voters have expressed themselves clearly on the matter twice. The last time was in a referendum in June 2011 in the aftermath of the Fukushima March 2011 nuclear disaster. Then, 94 per cent of those voting, opted in favour of a total ban on the construction of nuclear reactors on Italian soil.

The current energy crisis is pressuring all to find alternative energy supplies at affordable cost. Nuclear energy, however, comes with two hidden costs which are rarely ever factored into the costings presented for public debate: the disposal of nuclear waste and the inherent risks linked to the failure of the nuclear plants. The impacts of the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania USA – 28 March 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine – 26 April 1986) and Fukushima (Japan – 11 March 2011) are clear enough testimony of what is at stake, when considering the option of nuclear energy.

The disposal of nuclear waste is the subject of an ongoing debate all over the world. It is costly both environmentally as well as financially. In the recent past, closer to home, the eco-mafia dumped various types of waste including nuclear waste in the Mediterranean Sea in 42 different ships sunk in different parts of the Mediterranean. The specific case of the sunken ship Kunsky off the Calabrian coast was revealed by ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra turncoats Francesco Fonti and Carmine Schiavone many years ago in their testimony to the Italian authorities.

Most of the technical risks of nuclear plants have become more manageable with the technical developments over the years. There is however one exception! As revealed by the Fukushima disaster, natural forces are not always predictable. In Fukushima the risks resulting from earthquakes in the end proved once more to be unmanageable. This is of extreme relevance to the debate on the possible eventual siting of nuclear reactors on the Italian mainland.

The site which in 2011 was indicated by the Italian authorities as the most probable candidate to host a nuclear reactor in Sicily was along the southern coastline in the vicinity of Palma de Montechiaro. That would be less than 100 kilometres to the North West of Gozo.

As we are aware Sicily is an earthquake prone zone. In addition to the multitude of small earthquakes we hear about and occasionally are aware of throughout the year, the Sicilian mainland was exposed to the two most intensive earthquakes ever to hit the European mainland. The 1693 earthquake centred in South East Sicily had a magnitude of 7.4 while the Messina 1908 earthquake had a magnitude of 7.1 on the Mercalli scale. Both created havoc and had a high cost in human life! In addition, the physical infrastructure was in shambles.

A decision on whether the Italian government will once more attempt to consider the generation of nuclear energy on Italian soil is not due anytime soon. However, once the collection of signatures for a referendum on the matter gathers steam it will only be a question of time when we will have to consider facing the music one more time.

Our interest in Malta is in the transboundary impacts generated from a nuclear reactor sited along the southern Sicilian coast close to Palma di Montechiaro, should the proposed nuclear reactor malfunction.

It would be pertinent to keep in mind that the radioactivity emitted as a result of the Fukushima disaster led to a complete evacuation within a 200 km radius of the nuclear plant. Gozo being less than 100 km away from the Sicilian mainland should trigger the alarm bells of one and all as to what is ultimately at stake.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 15 January 2023

L-istupru t’Għawdex

Il-PLPN kontinwament jipperfezzjonaw l-istrateġija tagħhom dwar l-istupru t’Għawdex. Din l-istrateġija illum il-ġurnata jispjegawha fil-wegħdiet elettorali tagħhom.  Sfortunatament, f’din il-ħidma tagħhom għandhom l-appoġġ ta’ għaqdiet bħall-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija li għadhom kif ħarġu dokument bil-prijoritajiet li huma qed jipproponu għall-leġislatura li jmiss.

Il-mina taħt il-fliegu bejn Malta u Għawdex, għalihom tibqa’ prijorità. Ma’ dan issa żdied mitjar rurali. Jidher li jridu jassiguraw li l-istupru li qed jippjanaw fuq Għawdex ikollu effett massimu.

Il-mina proposta mhiex għan-nies iżda għall-karozzi. Hi mina dipendenti b’mod assolut fuq il-karozzi u l-inġenji kummerċjali oħra li jkunu jistgħu jagħmlu użu minna. Kull waħda minn dawn il-karozzi jew inġenji kummerċjali tħallas biex tgħaddi mill-mina. Il-vijabilità ekonomika tal-mina tiddependi milli jkunu mħajjra jagħmlu użu minna l-ikbar numru possibli ta’ karozzi.

F’wieħed mill-istudji li saru kien ħadem stima li bħala riżultat tal-mina proposta, il-moviment ta’ karozzi bejn Malta u Għawdex jimmultiplika ruħu bi tlieta, minn 3000 moviment kuljum għal 9000 movement kuljum. L-istudju hu intitolat Establishing a Permanent Link between the Island of Gozo and Mainland Malta: An Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Available Strategic Options.  Dan l-istudju kien ikkummissjonat mill-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija  u  Transport Malta.

Il-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdija qegħda fuq quddiem nett fl-isforz biex Għawdex ikun stuprat. Flimkien mal-PLPN iridu jerfgħu r-responsabbiltà għall-konsegwenzi.

X’sens jagħmel li żżid bi tlett darbiet il-moviment tal-karozzi Maltin fit-toroq Għawdxin? It-toroq Għawdxin jifilħu għal dan? Għandna nissagrifikaw il-kwalità tal-arja f’Għawdex ukoll?  Jagħmel sens li nesportaw il-problemi tat-traffiku minn Malta għal Għawdex?

It-tweġiba ovvja għal kull waħda minn dawn il-mistoqsijiet hi le. Bosta minnha huma konxji li t-toroq Għawdxin ma baqax fejn tqiegħed labra fihom u dan bħala riżultat tal-karozzi li diġa qed jaqsmu l-fliegu f’dan il-mument.

Anke fit-toroq Għawdxin hemm il-ħtieġa li jonqsu l-karozzi.  Diġa hemm wisq. Ma jagħmilx sens li jiżdiedu. Dan imur kontra dak kollu li jipprovdi l-pjan nazzjonali għat-trasport. Dan il-pjan japplika għal-Għawdex ukoll.

Is-servizz tal-fast-ferry service, jekk organizzat sewwa b’mod li jwassal in-nies f’punti differenti tul il-kosta Maltija, jibqa’ soluzzjoni tajba. B’hekk tkun assigurata mobilità sostenibbli bejn il-gżejjer.  Imma biex dan ikun effettiv, jeħtieġ ukoll transport pubbliku iffukat u faċilitajiet aħjar fil-port tal-iMġarr Għawdex. Dan jassigura mobilità aħjar b’impatt ambjentali sostanzjalment imnaqqas.  

Il-pjan nazzjonali għat-trasport, ippubblikat mill-Gvern Laburista jemfasizza l-ħtieġa li jonqsu l-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna. Il-proposta għal mina bejn Malta u Għawdex tikkontradixxi dan il-pjan. Għalfejn il-Gvern jieħu parir, iħallas għalih minn fondi pubbliċi u imbagħad jinjorah? Għaliex il-Gvern qiegħed kontinwament jinjora l-pjan tat-trasport tiegħu stess?

Jekk il-proġett tal-mina isseħħ, dan ser ikun il-kawża ta’ ħsara ambjentali sostanzjali kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex.  F’Malta ser jinqered il-villaġġ trogloditiku tal-Għerien fil-limiti tal-Mellieħa. F’Għawdex ser jinqered ammont mhux żgħir ta’ raba’ f’ Ta’ Kenuna, limiti tan-Nadur.

Hemm iktar soluzzjonijiet biex tkun indirizzata l-mobilità bejn Malta u Għawdex. Dan jirrikjedi li niffukaw fuq il-mobilità tan-nies. Jirrikjedi li nindirizzaw id-dipendenza li żviluppajna fuq il-karozza, kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex. Sakemm nieħdu d-deċiżjoni li nibdew nindirizzaw din id-dipendenza, kull soluzzjoni li nippruvaw, ftit tista’ tkun effettiva.  

Ilna nopponu l-proposta għall-mina sa mill-ewwel jum minn meta, madwar għaxar snin ilu, din ġiet proposta mill-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdija bl-appoġġ tal-PLPN. Jekk inti ukoll ma taqbilx li issir din il-mina żomm quddiem għajnejk li huma biss membri parlamentari eletti f’isem ADPD li jistgħu jmexxu l-quddiem l-idejat tiegħek.  

Bl-appoġġ tiegħek nhar is-26 ta’ Marzu hu possibli li dan l-istupru li l-PLPN qed jippjanaw nevitawh.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 13 ta’ Marzu 2022

The rape of Gozo

The PLPN have elevated their strategy to accelerate the rape of Gozo to manifesto status. Unfortunately, they are supported in their endeavours by the likes of the Gozo Business Chamber which has just issued its key priority areas for the next legislature.

The tunnel below the Gozo Channel remains a priority on their books. To this they have now added a “rural airfield”. It seems that they want to ensure that their planned rape has maximum effect on Gozo.

The proposed tunnel is a tunnel for cars not for people.

The proposed Gozo tunnel is dependent on cars and other vehicles making use of it. It is these cars which will be subject to the payment of tolls. Maximising such vehicular use is crucial for the proposed tunnel to make any economic sense.

One of the studies carried out, which is in the public domain, had estimated that as a result of the proposed tunnel, the current daily movements of vehicles between Malta and Gozo would be trebled from 3000 daily movements to 9000 daily movements. The study entitled Establishing a Permanent Link between the Island of Gozo and Mainland Malta: An Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Available Strategic Options was commissioned some years back by the Gozo Business Chamber together with Transport Malta.

The Gozo Business Chamber is in the front seat in this effort to rape Gozo. Together with the PLPN it has to shoulder responsibility for the consequences.

Does it make sense to treble the daily vehicle movements on Gozitan roads? Do Gozitan roads have that capacity? Should we sacrifice air quality in Gozo too? Does it make sense to export traffic problems from Malta to Gozo? The obvious answer to all these questions is a clear no. Most of us are aware that Gozitan roads are already bursting at the seams as a result of the number vehicles crossing over at this point in time.

Cars should be decreased on Gozitan roads too! There are already too many on the road. Increasing them exponentially is not on. This is the antithesis of the underlying theme of the National Transport Master Plan.

The fast-ferry service, suitably organised and servicing multiple destinations along the Maltese coast, is the potential long-term solution to ensure having a reasonable and sustainable mobility between the islands. In order for this to be effective, however, it has to be buttressed by a more focused public transport service and substantially improved port facilities at Mġarr Gozo. This will ensure better mobility with a much-reduced environmental impact.

The National Transport Master Plan published by this Labour administration advocates the need to reduce the number of cars on our roads. The proposal for the Gozo tunnel contradicts this objective. Why does government seek advice and then ignore it? Why does government repeatedly ignore its own Transport Master Plan?

If the tunnel materialises, it will result in significant environmental damage in both Malta and Gozo. On the Malta side it would include the obliteration of the troglodytic village at l-Għerien in the limits of Mellieħa. In Gozo it would ruin extensive agricultural holdings in the Ta’ Kenuna area, in the limits of Nadur.

There are other solutions which can adequately address the mobility between Malta and Gozo. It does however require thinking outside the box and focusing on the real issue: the sustainable mobility of people. This would require a bold initiative of addressing head-on car-dependency in both Malta and Gozo. Until we take the decision to start shedding our car- dependency, however, no solution can be really effective.

The Green Party has been opposing the proposal for an undersea tunnel continuously since it was first tabled by the Gozo Business Chamber and supported by the PLPN, around ten years ago. If you disagree with this tunnel proposal kindly note that it is only green members of parliament on the ADPD list that can represent your views.

Your support on the 26 March is essential to prevent this from happening.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 13 March 2022

Saving the little that we have

Almost two years ago, Architect Edward Said submitted a request to the Planning Authority and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage in order that they take steps to protect a Villa along the St Julian’s promenade. The Villa known as Palazzina Vincenti was designed and constructed for his own use by Architect Gustavo Romeo Vincenti. Architect Vincenti died in 1974.

As far as is known, neither the Planning Authority nor the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage have acted upon the submissions received requesting the protection of Palazzina Vincenti. At the time of writing the Superintendence has passed the buck to the Planning Authority! In the meantime, a development application has been submitted for the demolition of Palazzina Vincenti and its substitution with a 17-storey 136 room hotel, including three levels below street level providing garage space for 58 cars.

In a report drawn up by Architect Edward Said, Palazzina Vincenti is described as “a masterpiece of architecture defined by pure geometric volumes”.  It is considered as one of the earliest examples of the use of reinforced concrete in domestic architecture in Malta.  Quoting from a 2018 Masters of Architecture dissertation by David Ellul, Architect Said emphasises that by taking full advantage of the potential of reinforced concrete, Vincenti’s artistic expression was freed from the limitations of traditional materials. The result is this masterpiece which can be lost quite soon!

Even though to the untrained eye Palazzina Vincenti may seem to be an ugly building specimen, ill-fitting in its present-day concrete jungle surroundings, it is still a masterpiece worth preserving for posterity.

I fail to understand why two years after a request for protection has been submitted no action has yet been taken. As a result of such inaction, the message conveyed by the authorities is a very clear one: that the site occupied by Palazzina Vincenti is ripe for development. This is an inevitable conclusion conveyed by those in charge as a result of their failure to act.

At this point in time, as a minimum, it is expected that an emergency conservation order protecting Palazzina Vincenti is issued urgently. This would be a clear sign to those currently benefitting from a prolonged phase of “development greed” that a red line has been drawn around our heritage, thereby protecting it. It would also provide some breathing space which would be of considerable help in order that the Planning Authority may bring its house in order.

Some have the mistaken idea that all our heritage is necessarily old, very old, going back centuries. This is certainly not the case as this specific architectural masterpiece is less than 75 years old. Unfortunately, there have been other worthy examples of our architectural heritage which have been lost through carelessness, insensitivity and institutional ignorance.

I could remind readers of another outstanding example of modern architecture which has gone to the dogs, this time in Gozo, some 15 years ago. Parts of the Qala Primary School in Gozo were demolished to make way for an Institute of Tourism Studies campus in Gozo. The said school was designed and constructed under the supervision of Architect Joseph Huntingford who as the government architect in charge of schools was responsible for most new schools constructed in Gozo between 1950 and 1961.

Way back in 2006 the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers had described the Qala Primary School as one of the finest examples of modern architecture on the island. Even then the Planning Authority was advised to handle our heritage with care. But it was of no use. The advice was ignored as parts of the school were demolished to make way for the ITS campus.

There is still time to save Palazzina Vincenti from being sacrificed on the altar of “development greed”. We need to be more appreciative of our heritage. We have so little of it. I am not however so sure as to whether the Planning Authority is capable of taking decisive action. It has been desensitised for far too long.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 December 2021

The Metro consultation: taking us for a ride

In 2008 Professor Mir Ali from the School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, published a paper entitled “Urban Design Strategy Report on Tall Buildings in Malta.”

Professor Ali comments on the lack of mass transport facilities in Malta and links the functionality of tall buildings with the availability of mass transport facilities. He emphasises that: “Once there is a BRT or MRT system, integration of tall buildings with transportation can result in high efficiency, consolidation of services and a better urban life.” BRT signifies Bus Rapid Transit System. MRT signifies Mass Rapid Transport.

The need for a mass transport network has been felt for a long time. Greens in Malta have been emphasising that it is one of various solutions to address transport issues in the Maltese islands.

Government’s announcement last weekend on a three-route metro is just a first step. Greens definitely agree with the objective though not with the specifics proposed. As ARUP emphasised, government’s massive expenditure on long-term road building will not solve anything. Most of it is money down the drain.

Government’s announcement has only presented a sketch of a solution. The proposal needs to be much more detailed than that. While the identification of the routes as well as the location of the stations is definitely important information, we need more analytical information to digest.

ARUP identified potential routes and stations on the basis of studies. It is said that studies were also carried out on various options, as a result of which ARUP discarded the Bus Rapid Transit, the surface tram, the elevated light metro and combinations. We need to be able to digest these studies to understand why ARUP have discarded alternative solutions. All studies carried out by ARUP should be available for examination in the Metro public consultation. If this is not possible what is the purpose of a public consultation?

The proposal for a Metro should not be an excuse for developing open spaces as has already been pointed out with reference to the proposed B’Kara and Pembroke Metro stations. We already have too few open spaces.

Proposals have to be analysed within the wider context of transport policy in Malta.  Specifically private car use must be substantially reduced for any mass transport proposal to be economically feasible! This must be clear even at this stage. It is inevitable, but government is conveniently being silent on the matter! Has ARUP advised on the matter in its feasibility studies? We have a right to know.

It is the intention to utilise the stations to attract metro users from the surrounding areas. Some, living nearby, will come on foot. Others living or working slightly further away may come by private car, by bus or by bike.  Most potential metro stations do not have parking areas around them. This signifies that it is essential that more emphasis is laid on the interaction between the proposed Metro and local and regional transport.

The metro’s functioning has to be seen within the existing urban context. This is very relevant to the debate but unfortunately the detailed advice which government has received in this respect has not been divulged. Just one tit-bit of information has inadvertently emerged. When asked as to why the Metro will not make it to Gozo, it was stated that there is not sufficient population on the sister island. This begs the question: how come then that a tunnel is planned below the sea to link the two islands?

The announcement further informed us that most of the Metro will be underground with only a small stretch being above ground for topographical reasons.  Depending on the size of the tunnels between the metro stations this could generate a substantial amount of inert waste. An estimated excavation volume of 4.9 million cubic metres, presumably measured in situ, is indicated. Once excavated this would amount to around 8.6 million cubic metres after taking account of the increase in volume after excavation. This is a substantial amount of inert waste which, as already hinted, can only be utilised in land reclamation projects. For comparative purposes 8.6 million cubic metres of inert waste is close to the amount that was used in the whole Freeport project at Kalafrana for land reclamation purposes!

I am not aware of any land reclamation currently required in the national interest. We cannot be forced into land reclamation as the only solution to dispose of the inert waste generated by the Metro project.

Excavation of an underground Metro does not only generate excessive inert waste. It also endangers our historical heritage: in particular when excavating below, around or close to national monuments in Valletta, Mosta, Balluta and elsewhere. Excavation is also proposed next to ecologically sensitive sites.

This is definitely not on.

Proposed solutions above ground have to be examined in detail too and discussed as part of the public consultation. A hybrid metro-tram system mostly above ground, and/or a Bus Rapid Transit system, are other possibilities which should make it on the table of any serious public consultation. They do not generate inert waste, can be implemented in a shorter time frame from that proposed by ARUP and cost a fraction of the proposed outlay. In addition, substantially less environmental impacts are involved. Any selected solutions should respect our historical and ecological heritage.

Through constructive criticism we can explore alternative solutions which are being deliberately shut out with a stage-managed consultation. We need more than PR stunts: logos and flashy video clips are not the information we need for a mature public consultation. Government must put all its cards on the table. The ARUP studies must be subject to public scrutiny. Otherwise, the public consultation is taking us for a ride.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 10 October 2021

Mina : rovina

Il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex, għal darba oħra qegħda fl-aħbarijiet.

Waqt konferenza stampa, iktar kmieni matul il-ġimgħa, kelliema tal-PN fissru kif jaħsbuha dwar il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex. Bħas-soltu jippruvaw jogħġbu liż-żewġ naħat (favur u kontra l-mina), din id-darba bil-proposta ta’ referendum dwar jekk il-mina għandhiex issir jew le.

Kieku kellu jseħħ referendum ta’ din ix-xorta, dan għandu jinvolvi lil kulħadd, u mhux biss lill-Għawdxin. Dan billi l-impatti negattivi tal-mina, jekk isseħħ, ser jolqtu liż-żewġ naħat tal-fliegu: kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex.  

Mid-dettalji li nafu s’issa dwar il-mina, hu magħruf li f’Malta din ser tibda minn ħdejn l-Għerien, villaġġ ċkejken, villaġġ trogloditiku fil-limiti tal-Mellieħa. Kif jixhed ismu dan il-villaġġ hu parzjalment fl-għerien, fejn kienu jgħixu uħud mill-ewwel abitanti f’dawn il-gżejjer. Riżultat tat-tħaffir għall-mina dan il-villaġġ ser jinqered kompletament. F’Għawdex, min-naħa l-oħra, l-mina tibda fl-inħawi Ta’ Kenuna, fil-limiti tan-Nadur b’impatt qawwi u negattiv fuq il-biedja lokali.  

Tajjeb li neżaminaw mill-ġdid uħud mill-argumenti għala mhemmx ħtieġa ta’ mina li kull ma ser iġġib hu rovina.  

Il-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex ser tkun tiddependi mill-karozzi w inġenji oħra li għax jagħmlu użu minnha jħallsu. Biex il-mina tagħmel sens ekonomiku n-numru ta’ karozzi u inġenji li jagħmlu użu mill-mina jrid ikun wieħed sostanzjali.  F’wieħed mill-istudji li saru u li hu pubbliku kien hemm estimu li l-moviment ta’ karozzi u inġenji oħra bejn Malta u Għawdex jiżdied bi tlett darbiet, minn tlett elef kuljum għal disat elef kuljum. L-istudju hu intitolat Establishing a Permanent Link between the Island of Gozo and Mainland Malta: An Economic Cost Benefit Analysis of Available Strategic Options u kien ikkummissjunat mill-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija flimkien ma’ Transport Malta.

Jagħmel sens li l-karozzi li kull jum jiżdiedu fit-toroq Għawdxin jiżiedu bi tlett darbiet? It-toroq Għawdxin jifilħu għal dan? Għandna nissagrifikaw il-kwalità tal-arja f’Għawdex ukoll?  Jagħmel sens li nesportaw il-problemi tat-traffiku minn Malta għal Għawdex?  it-tweġiba ovvja għal kull waħda minn dawn il-mistoqsijiet hi: le, dan ma jagħmilx sens. Bosta minna huma konxji li anke illum, it-toroq Għawdxin diġa ma jifilħux għat-traffiku li jiġi minn Malta kuljum.

Is-servizz tal-katamaran (fast-ferry service) li riċentement beda jitħaddem għandu l-potenzjal għal soluzzjoni fit-tul biex tkun indirizzata b’mod raġjonevoli l-mobilità sostenibbli bejn il-gżejjer.  Imma dan is-servizz, waħdu, mhux biżżejjed, jeħtieġ li jkun rinfurzat mis-servizz tat-trasport pubbliku kif ukoll minn faċilitajiet aħjar fil-port tal-Imġarr Għawdex.

Mid-dibattitu tul ix-xhur qed tissaħħaħ l-idea li minbarra r-rotta diretta bejn l-Imġarr u l-Port il-Kbir jista’ jkun utli li jkun hemm xi waqfiet. Din hi proposta li tajjeb li tkun ikkunsidrata, imma irridu noqgħodu attenti li din ma tkunx skuża li warajha tinħeba strateġija biex jiżdied l-iżvilupp mal-kosta, b’mod partikolari dawk il-partijiet tal-kosta li għadhom mhux mittiefsa. Ikun tajjeb li nillimitaw ruħna għall-infrastruttura kostali eżistenti.

L-iżvilupp tas-servizz tal-katamaran, b’dan il-mod, mhux biss iwassal għal ħolqa effiċjenti u permanenti bejn il-gżejjer. Iwassal ukoll għal tnaqqis ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna, kemm f’Malta kif ukoll f’Għawdex.  

Il-mina proposta mhiex soluzzjoni, hi problema, iġġib rovina. Nistgħu nsolvu l-problemi ta’ mobilità bis-sens komun. Is-servizz tal-katamaran hi waħda minn dawn is-soluzzjonijiet: issolvi problema illum mingħajr ma tgħabbi l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.  

ippubblikata fuq Illum : 8 t’Awwissu 2021