L-ispekulaturi tal-art mgħejjuna mill-Gvern: ħa jaħtfu l-baħar ukoll

Qieshom mejtin bil-ġuh. Wara li ħarbtu l-art, issa ser iduru għall-baħar. Għalissa qed jillimitaw ruhom mir-Rikasli saż-Żonqor. Imma wara jibqgħu għaddejjin sa Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq.

Hu ċar daqs il-kristall li l-ispekulaturi tal-art lokali dawwru għajnejhom lejn il-kosta tagħna biex jissodisfaw ir-regħba tagħhom bla qies.

L-informazzjoni li l-Awtorità għall-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) identifikat il-kosta bejn ir-Rikażli u iż-Żonqor bħala l-iktar parti tal-kosta li hi addattata għar-riklamazzjoni hi ta’ tħassib kbir. L-ERA qed tgħid li għaliex iż-żona hija diġa’ iddegradata (jiġifieri prattikament mejta), allura ma jimpurtax li tkompli issirilha aktar u aktar ħsara, għax daqslikieku ma baqax tama għal din iż-żona. Hekk qed tgħid l-ERA b’ħafna logħob bil-kliem.

Għalkemm għadha ma ttieħdet l-ebda deċiżjoni definittiva, l-identifikazzjoni mill-ERA ta’ din iż-żona hija r-riżultat ta’ pressjoni biex jinstab sit adattat għar-rimi ta’ skart tal-kostruzzjoni li jirriżulta minn proġetti fuq skala kbira bħall-mina proposta bejn Malta u Għawdex, kif ukoll il-proġett dB fis-sit tal-ITS u l-proġett Corinthia fuq il-peniżola ta’ Pembroke. Dawn il-proġetti se jipproduċu madwar miljun u nofs metru kubu ta’ skart tal-kostruzzjoni.

Iż-żona matul il-kosta tax-Xgħajra diġà ntużat bħala sit għar-rimi tal-iskart tal-kostruzzjoni minn proġetti oħra kbar, bħall-proġett mostru tal-MIDI fuq il-peniżola ta’ Tigne. Hi żona li ġiet wkoll effetwat bħala riżultat tal-outfall tad-drenaġġ tul is-snin.

Il-Gvern irċieva madwar għoxrin espressjoni ta’ interess, liema sejħa ħarget mill-Gvern innifsu, għal proġetti li jinvolvu r-riklamazzjoni tal-art f’diversi partijiet tal-kosta. Deċiżjonijiet dwar dawn il-proġetti għadhom pendenti. Huwa magħruf ukoll li fost l-aktar proġetti msemmija huma dawk bejn Portomaso u Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq. Fosthom hemm it-talba riċenti relatata mal-proġett Corinthia fuq il-peniżola ta’ Pembroke kif ukoll iż-żona marbuta ma’ Portomaso li kienet tifforma parti mill-Masterplan ta’ Paceville li illum suppost li ġie skartat.

Sfortunatament il-Gvern huwa favur ir-riklamazzjoni tal-art u għalhekk id-dikjarazzjonijiet minn uffiċjali tal-gvern li jipprovaw jitfgħu l-ballun f’saqajn l-ERA mhux kredibbli.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi kontra l-estensjoni tal-kankru tal-ispekulazzjoni tal-art għal fuq il-baħar tagħna. Tħeġġeġ lill-Gvern biex jieħu miżuri effettivi biex jipproteġi l-kosta u l-aċċess għaliha. Għad hemm diversi talbiet pendenti minn NGOs ambjentali għall-protezzjoni tal-kosta u dan in konnessjoni mal-implimentazzjoni tal-ligi tad-dimanju pubbliku. Kemm se jdumu fuq l-ixkaffa dawn it-talbiet?

Advertisements

Malta u Għawdex: problema komuni tat-trasport

Id-dibattitu dwar il-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex għaddej.

Jekk tifli l-argumenti ta’ dawk li qed jesprimu ruħhom favur din il-mina taħt qiegħ il-baħar bejn Malta u Għawdex hemm raġuni waħda li tispikka: iridu jnaqqsu l-ħin li “jaħlu” jivvjaġġaw. Imma din il-problema, jiġifieri l-ħtieġa li nnaqqsu l-ħin li nivvjaġġaw hi problema tagħna lkoll, mhux tal-Għawdxin biss. Hi problema mifruxa prattikament ma Malta kollha. Imma ħadd mhu qiegħed jipproponi li nħaffru mina taħt il-Bajja ta’ Marsamxett biex innaqqsu l-ħin meta immorru minn Tas-Sliema għal Marsamxett. L-anqas mhi qed isir proposta ta’ mina taħt il-Port il-Kbir bejn il-Belt u Bormla avolja din kieku tnaqqas il-ħin biex nivvjaġġaw.

Is-soluzzjoni biex innaqqsu il-ħin tal-ivvjaġġar bejn Tas-Sliema u Marsamxett inkella biex naqsmu min-naħa għall-oħra tal-Port il-Kbir hi li nagħmlu użu aħjar tat-trasport bil-baħar u mhux mini taħt qiegħ il-baħar. Ir-riżultat hu aċċess f’iqsar ħin biex taqsam bejn naħa u oħra taż-żewġ portijiet. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan, kuljum ikun hemm inqas karozzi fit-toroq tagħna. Dan esperiment li diġa qed jaħdem b’ċerta success: min-naħa għall-oħra ma jċaqalqux karozzi imma biss lin-nies.

Il-mobilità bejn Malta u Għawdex tista’ tkun faċilitatà bl-użu ta’ fast ferry service bejn Għawdex, Tas-Sliema u l-Belt Valletta. Ikun mezz li jindirizza l-problema reali: il-mobilità tan-nies.

Sfortunatament dawk li qed jikkampanjaw favur il-mina, immexxija kif inhuma mill-Kamra tal-Kummerċ Għawdxija, iddeċidew li l-unika soluzzjoni biex tkun indirizzata in-nuqqas ta’ mobilità sostenibbli bejn Malta u Għawdex hi mina. Din hi fil-fatt l-agħar soluzzjoni għax tagħmel ħsara kbira u irriversibbli lill-Għawdex.

Il-problema f’dan kollu huma l-karozzi: jekk jirnexxielna inneħħuhom mill-konsiderazzjoni tagħna, naslu. Dan hu fil-fatt l-ikbar ostaklu biex naslu għal soluzzjoni sostenibbli għall-problemi ta’ mobilità li qed niffaċċjaw: mhux biss dawk ta’ Għawdex imma f’kull rokna tal-gżejjer Maltin.

Jiena emfasizzajt repetutament li is-soluzzjoni għall-probemi tagħna ta’mobilità qegħdin filli nirrispettaw u nimxu mal-Pjan Nazzjonali għat-Trasport 2025 li kien approvat għal Malta fl-2016. Is-silta segwenti li ħadt minn dan il-pjan tispjega b’mod ċar dak kollu li hemm ħażin fl-ippjanar tat-trasport f’Malta:

“Improve integrated and long-term strategic planning and design: This objective has been defined since historically, it can be seen from experience that the approach to transport planning and policy in Malta has generally been more short-term (4-5 years) in nature. The lack of importance given to long-term planning means that a long-term integrated plan based on solid analysis with clear objectives and targets is lacking. This has resulted in the lack of strategic direction and the inherent inability to address difficult issues such as private vehicle restraint.

There is a strong reluctance for Maltese society to change but this is in contrast with the need for communal actions to address the traffic problems existing now and in the future. This results in the Maltese traveller expecting that everyone else will change their travel habits so that they can continue to drive their car.” (paġna 88 tal-Pjan Nazzjonali tat-Transport 2025)

Ħallejtha appost fl-oriġinal għax naħseb li tinftiehem mingħajr ħtieġa ta’ traduzzjoni. Fi ftit kliem din is-silta tgħidilna li ma nistgħux nibqgħu nippjanaw mil-lum għal għada. Hemm ħtieġa li nħarsu fit-tul. In-nuqqas li nagħmlu dan fisser li bqajna ma indirizzajniex id-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi. Għax is-soċjeta Maltija tibża’ mill-bidla: tippretendi li kulħadd jibdel id-drawwiet tiegħu biex hu (jew hi) jkun jista’ jibqa’ jsuq il-karozz!

Malta u Għawdex għandhom problema tat-transport komuni. Problema deskritta minn kelma waħda: karozza. Is-soluzzjoni għal din il-problema tirrikjedi alternattivi għall-karozza: il-mina mhiex waħda minn dawn is-soluzzjonijiet. Fil-mument li nkunu lesti li naqtgħu d-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozza il-problema tissolva b’faċilità.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 6 ta’ Jannar 2019

Malta & Gozo share a transport problem

The Malta-Gozo tunnel debate is now in full swing.

Going through the arguments of those expressing themselves in favour of the proposed tunnel between Malta and Gozo, one specific reason sticks out: the need to reduce travelling time.

May I point out that this problem – the need to reduce travelling time – is not peculiar to Gozitan commuters: it applies all over the Maltese Islands. Yet no one is proposing the drilling of a tunnel below Marsamxett Bay to reduce travelling time between Valletta and Sliema. Nor is a tunnel between Valletta/Floriana and Bormla on the books, even though this would reduce the travelling time between Valletta/Floriana and the Cottonera area.

The solution adopted to reduce travelling time across Marsamxett Bay and the Grand Harbour has been to tap sea transport and not the drilling of tunnels below the seabed! The end result is a faster access between Valletta and Sliema on the one hand and between Valletta and Cottonera on the other hand: and a number of cars off our roads, every day.

Facilitating the mobility between Malta and Gozo can easily be carried out by means of a fast ferry service between Gozo, Sliema and Valletta. It would be a ferry facilitating the movement of people and, as a result it will be addressing the real issue: the mobility of individuals.

Unfortunately, the Gozo tunnel lobby, led by the Gozo Business Chamber, has decided that the only solution to the lack of sustainable mobility between Gozo and Malta is a tunnel. It is, in fact, the worst possible solution because, in the process, it will ruin Gozo in an irreversible manner.

The real issue to be addressed is to remove cars from the equation. This is, in fact, the real obstacle to achieving a sustainable solution to our mobility issues, not just in respect of Gozo but also with reference to Malta.

I have emphasised time and again that adherence to the National Transport Master Plan 2025 approved for Malta in 2015 is the solution to most of our sustainable mobility issues. This extract from the Master Plan clearly explains all that is wrong with transport planning in Malta:

“Improve integrated and long-term strategic planning and design: This objective has been defined since historically, it can be seen from experience that the approach to transport planning and policy in Malta has generally been more short-term (4-5 years) in nature. The lack of importance given to long-term planning means that a long-term integrated plan based on solid analysis with clear objectives and targets is lacking. This has resulted in the lack of strategic direction and the inherent inability to address difficult issues such as private vehicle restraint.

There is a strong reluctance for Maltese society to change but this is in contrast with the need for communal actions to address the traffic problems existing now and in the future. This results in the Maltese traveller expecting that everyone else will change their travel habits so that they can continue to drive their car.” (page 88 of National Transport Master Plan 2025)

Malta and Gozo share the same transport problem. The problem is a three-letter word: car. The solution to our mobility problem requires alternatives to the use of the private car and the tunnel is not one of them. If we are ready to dump our dependency on cars, the rest is not difficult to achieve.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 6 January 2019

Kafè Al Fresco ……… is-sogru huwa tiegħek

Ħwienet tal-kafè jew restoranti al fresco f’numru ta’ lokalitajiet ħadulna l-bankina. F’xi każi anke l-ispazju għall-parkeġġ tal-karozzi ħadu, għax dawn jimpurthom biss minn ħaġa waħda: li jdawru lira. Ovvjament dawn jippretendu li aħna nimxu f’nofs it-triq għax fuq il-bankina ftit iħallulna spazju minn fejn ngħaddu. Iħalluhom, qiesu ma ġara xejn. Lanqas tista’ titkellem, għax il-bankina għamluha tagħhom.

L-awtoritajiet jiġu jaqgħu u jqumu għax dawn jinteresshom biss li jkunu jidhru “business friendly”: ċjoe viċin in-nies tal-flus, ħa jdawru lira. Il-bqija, min jafhom?

Is-sindki tal-Gżira u Tas-Sliema, Conrad Borg Manchè u Dominic Chircop, matul dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat għamlu sewwa li emfasizzaw li l-mod kif tal-kafè u r-restoranti al fresco qed joperaw fil-lokalitajiet tagħhom mhux aċċettabbli, għax ma jagħtux kas tan-nies.

L-inċidenti, kif tafu, jiġru. Biżżejjed incident wieħed ta’ karozza misjuqa ħażin li tista’ tispiċċa toqtol jew tweġġa’ serjament numru ta’ persuni f’xi wieħed minn dawn il-ħwienet tal-kafè jew ir-restoranti. Imbagħad forsi jkun hemm min jagħti kas.

Ftit ġimgħat ilu, f’Lulju, żgħażugħ Olandiz ta’ 25 sena li kien qiegħed jippassiġa San Giljan max-xatt intlaqat minn Subaru Impreza li kienet misjuqa b’veloċitá esaġerata minn żgħażugħ ta’ 20 sena li kien rappurtat li qabeż kull limitu raġjonevoli ta’ alkoħol. L-Olandiż miet l-isptar. Oħrajn weġġgħu. U dan apparti bosta ħsara oħra.

Kien pass tajjeb tal-Awtoritá tal-Artijiet li rrifjutat applikazzjoni tas-sidien tal-Lukanda Waterfront max-Xatt tal-Gżira biex dawn ikunu jistgħu jieħdu numru ta’ spazji għal parkeġġ biex ikollhom ħanut tal-kafè jew restorant fuq il-bankina quddiem il-lukanda. Meta sidien il-lukanda ikkontestaw id-deċiżjoni tal-Awtoritá tal-Artijiet, fl-aħħar sabu lil min jagħti kas. Il-Maġistrat Charmaine Galea li ppresjediet l-appell emfasizzat li r-regoli dwar l-imwejjed u s-siġġijiet fl-apert jipprojibixxu li dawn jitqegħdu biswit toroq arterjali, viċin traffiku li jkun għaddej b’veloċitá. Il-Maġistrat Galea emfasizzat li n-nies għandha dritt li tkun imħarsa mit-traffiku, mill-istorbju kif ukoll mid-dħaħen iġġenerati mill-karozzi.

Il-Maġistrat Charmaine Galea għandha raġun. Hemm ħtieġa urgenti li l-loġika tagħha tinfetta l-proċess deċiżjonali tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar għax hu ċar li prattikament il-ħwienet tal-kafè u r-restoranti kollha fuq il-bankina fix-Xatt tal-Gżira u tas-Sliema mhumiex skont ir-regoli. Dan jgħodd ukoll għal inħawi oħra.

Id-deċiżjoni tal-Maġistrat Galea tagħti piz lill-argumenti tas-sindki tal-Gżira u tas-Sliema li ilhom żmien jinsistu li l-ħwienet tal-kafè u r-restoranti al fresco biswit ir-rotot ewlenin tat-traffiku jeħtieġu iktar ħsieb qabel ma jingħataw il-permess biex joperaw. Jeħtieġ titjib fl-infrastruttura biex it-traffiku jkollu jnaqqas il-veloċitá kif ukoll biex in-nies ikunu protetti minn inċidenti kkawżati minn karozzi misjuqa bl-addoċċ, mill-istorbju kif ukoll mid-dħaħen tal-petrol u d-dijsil. L-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar ma wriet l-ebda sens ta’ responsabbilta meta injorat lin-nies u qieset biss il-qies li dawk li jridu jdawru lira, irrispettivament mill-konsegwenzi.

Fuq il-bankini ftit qed jitħalla spazju biex jgħaddu n-nies u ma hemm l-ebda protezzjoni la mit-traffiku perikoluż u l-anqas mid-dħaħen. Għall-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar, sfortunatament, dan kollu ma jfisser xejn.

It-tħassib tal-Kunsilli Lokali dwar il-ħwienet tal-kafè u r-restoranti al fresco hu għal kollox injorat mill-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar għax ma jidhriliex li huma affarijiet li għandha tikkunsidra qabel ma tieħu d-deċiżjonijiet tagħha.

Qabel ma tippjana passiġġata max-xatt ftakar li hemmhekk hu riżervat għal min irid idawwar lira! Mill-bqija, is-sogru hu kollu tiegħek.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 1 ta’ Settembru 2018

 

 

Al fresco dining ……… at your risk

Al fresco dining has taken over pavements in a number of localities and parking spaces too have not been spared either, as the catering business does not care about anything except its bottom line. Apparently, we are expected to walk in the middle of the road.

The authorities do not give a fig, as their brief is apparently to be business-friendly. People friendly? Their dictionary has no reference to the term: never heard of that!

In the last few weeks, the mayors of Gżira and Sliema – Conrad Borg Manchè and Dominic Chircop – have rightfully emphasised that the manner in which al-fresco coffee shops and restaurants in their localities are operating is largely unacceptable. It just takes one car accident to kill a number of diners: then maybe the authorities will take note.

Accidents do happen: a few weeks ago, in July, a 25-year old Dutchman, who was walking along the St Julian’s promenade was hit by an over-speeding Subaru Impreza, driven by a 20-year-old who was reported as being well over the drink-drive limit. The Dutchman died in hospital. Others were injured; street furniture was damaged.

The Lands Authority has taken the right step in refusing an application submitted by the owners of the Waterfront Hotel on The Strand Gżira, to encroach on a number of parking spaces in order to provide an al-fresco extension to the Hotel on the pavement. When the hotel’s owners contested the Lands Authority’s decision,  they were, at last, faced with some common-sense.

Magistrate Charmaine Galea, chairing the Appeals Tribunal, emphasised that the outdoor catering policy prohibited any platforms adjacent to arterial roads or in close proximity to fast-moving traffic. She rightly emphasised the fact that restaurant patrons had to be safeguarded from traffic, noise and air pollution.

She is obviously right and we desperately need her logic to “infect” the Planning Authority decision-making structures because it is clear that practically none of the al-fresco dining areas on the pavement along The Strand in Gżira and Sliema (and many other areas) are in accordance with the policy.

Magistrate Galea’s decision gives considerable weight to the points raised by the mayors of Gżira and Sliema who have been insisting all along that al-fresco dining alongside main traffic routes needs to be given considerably more thought before being given the go-ahead. The infrastructure needs upgrading in order that traffic calming measures are introduced and restaurant patrons are adequately protected – not only from traffic accidents but from noise and exhaust fumes as well. The Planning Authority has not acted responsibly when it has issued a considerable number of permits which ignore patrons but then takes great care of the bottom-line of the catering establishments.

The permits issued as a result of the so-called “one stop shop” planning policy may be business friendly, but it is certainly not people-friendly. Serious concerns related to pedestrian access through the labyrinthine footpaths left on the pavements, adequate protection from over-speeding traffic and the impact on health impacts from eating metres away from exhaust fumes are continuously ignored by the Planning Authority.

The inputs from local councils on the subject of al-fresco dining is repeatedly ignored, as the Planning Authority is not bothered. It obviously considers the above issues as being trivial in nature.

Walking along The Strand?

Forget it: the promenade is reserved for business!

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 1 September 2018

Li l-permess ta’ Townsquare tħassar hu pass kbir ‘il quddiem

 

Id-deċiżjoni tat-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar li jħassar il-permess għat-torrijiet ta’ Townsquare u jibgħat il-każ mill-ġdid quddiem l-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar hu pass kbir ‘il quddiem.

It-Tribunal iddeċieda li hemm bżonn li l-pjanti sottomessi jkunu analizzati sewwa fil-kuntest tal-policies eżistenti kif ukoll li hemm studji li ma sarux li għandhom isiru u studju oħrajn li qatt ma’ raw id-dawl tax-xemx li għandhom ikunu magħrufa.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi sodisfatta b’din id-deċiżjoni għalkemm konxji li t-triq lejn deċiżjoni finali għadha ‘l-bogħod u mimlija perikli ambjentali.

Huwa l-mument li nifhmu kemm hu importanti li nibqgħu attenti għal dak li qed jiġri madwarna u li nibqgħu nsemmu leħinna bla waqfien.

Manoel Island: one step forward

The controversy on the future of Manoel Island has been going on for ages.

The citizen’s action some 18 months ago led by eNGO Kamp Emergenza Ambjent and publicly supported by the Gżira Mayor Conrad Borg Manchè as well as various eNGOs led to the current breakthrough with MIDI, as a result of which common sense will be given the opportunity to prevail.

The setting up of the Manoel Island Foundation with environmentalist Claire Bonello as chair is a landmark decision. It does not signify agreement with what has been done to date but rather a determination that in the future, if we put our heads together, we can possibly avoid past mistakes. In time, perhaps, we can also seek to reverse some of the mistakes carried out so far.

When, together with countless others, I joined the protest at Manoel Island 18 months ago, I had one objective in mind: that access to the open spaces and the foreshore of Manoel Island belonged to all of us. There was an urgent need that this access be claimed back and subsequently guaranteed. This has now been done.

The Guardianship agreement focus specifically on the public’s right of access which right has always been in existence even though MIDI did its best to obstruct its use over the years. MIDI has (at last) bound itself to respect such a right of access and together with the Gżira Local Council has spelled out the details on how this can be reasonably exercised. The efforts put in by all environmentalists bore fruit such that MIDI clearly understood that it could no longer avoid the negotiating table. It risked further reputational damage which it could ill-afford.

The cynics among us correctly maintain that there is nothing for which to thank MIDI that has after all obstructed the public’s right of access for so many years! They are of course right, but it is time to move on to the next challenges. We move forward incrementally, one small step at a time.

The Guardianship agreement seeks to address two diametrically opposed positions: the Gżira community’s right of access as supported by the environmental lobby on the one hand and the MIDI development rights granted by Parliament in the 1990s on the other hand.

One can argue until eternity that Malta’s Parliament was irresponsible when it unanimously approved the motion granting development rights to MIDI over the Tigne peninsula and Manoel Island. I still hold that same view. No Green could ever support such a Parliamentary motion, not even with the restoration sugar-coating obligations woven into the agreed concession.

Given that Parliament has no political will to reverse the 1990s decision and take Manoel Island back into public ownership, the Gżira Local Council, supported by eNGOs was right to seek and arrive at the Guardianship agreement. The agreement fills a void which Parliament and government could not even understand, and consequently could not address.

A price had to be paid for the Guardianship agreement to be concluded. This was the acceptance, subject to the provisions of the agreement, of the Manoel Island Masterplan and commitment on the part of those around the negotiating table not to oppose or object to its implementation. I think that this is the point of contention brought forward by those who disagree with the Guardianship agreement. This might be considered a high price to pay. However, it must be pointed out that the agreement contains a number of limitations on the Masterplan’s implementation and grants the Manoel Island Foundation a legal basis to halt the commercialisation of the foreshore or the green open spaces.

Alternattiva Demokratika considers the Guardianship agreement to be a positive step forward as it addresses the pressing issue of access based of a realistic appraisal of the situation. Gżira Local Council and the eNGOs involved are to be applauded for their determination in reaching this goal. Moreover, the Guardianship agreement does not exclude the possibility that in future, a responsible Parliament would seriously consider taking all of Manoel Island back into public ownership. It should however be noted that only a green MP can guarantee that the matter makes it to Parliament’s agenda. The others are too “business friendly” to even consider the matter.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 1st April 2018

Marsa: a planning mess

turkish-cemetry-marsa-malta2

The Chamber of Architects has taken the Planning Authority to task on the piecemeal local plan reviews that it has been churning out, one at a time. The latest tirade was with reference to a partial review of The Grand Harbour Local Plan (originally published in 2002) specifically with respect to a Marsa Park Site.

We have just concluded a public discussion on a Masterplan for Paceville, which was shredded by public opinion and sent back to the drawing board.

Earlier, we had the Planning Authority itself contesting whether Local Councils, NGOs and the Environment and Resources Authority  had a right to contest the decision to permit high-rises in Townsquare Sliema and in Imrieħel.

To make matters worse, instead of consolidating the environmental regulatory functions of the state, this government has opted to deliberately fragment them, thereby ensuring their reduced effectiveness by design.  In a small country such as Malta, it pays to have one consolidated authority  directed by environment professionals through whom land use planning responsibilities should be accountable.

Land use planning needs to be more focused but holistic in nature. The Chamber of Architects aptly makes the point that focusing the efforts of the partial review of the Grand Harbour Local Plan specifically on “a Marsa Business Park” without considering this within the context  of a much needed regeneration of Marsa would be a futile exercise. The decay of Marsa as an urban centre needs to be addressed at the earliest opportunity and this will not be done through piecemeal local plan reviews but through comprehensive planning “which ought to include community needs, road transport re-alignment, environment improvement and flooding mitigation measures”.

These are the basic issues which should be addressed by a local plan review concerning Marsa. Tackling major infrastructural and social problems facing the Marsa community should take precedence over any proposal for the redevelopment of the Marsa Park site. It is the whole of Marsa that should be addressed and not just one tiny corner.

The partial local plan review is ignoring the local community, just like its cousin the Paceville Masterplan did some months ago. Many years ago we learned that “planning is for people”. This seems to be no longer the case as, according to the Planning Authority, planning is apparently for business hubs, high-rises and, obviously, for developers. They seem to be very well connected, thereby ensuring that they occupy the first items of this government’s land use planning agenda.

Marsa has been forgotten over the years. With the closure of the Marsa power station now is the appropriate time to consider the various accumulated impacts on the Marsa community in order that an integrated approach to addressing them is identified. Planning is for people. That means that the Marsa community should be actively involved when these plans are being formulated, including at the drawing board stage. Land use planners should stimulate the Marsa community to speak up and involve itself in drawing up a blue print for its future.

The regeneration of Marsa is an urgent matter which should not be left unattended.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 15 January 2017

Townsquare: qed jgħadduk biż-żmien?

Townsquare.Fawlty Tower 

Il-bieraħ kont preżenti għall-ewwel seduta tal-appell mid-deċiżjoni tat-torri ta’ Townsquare.

Ir-rappreżentant legali tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar nixxef lil kulħadd meta talab lill-membri tat-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent  l-Ippjanar [dak li sa ftit ilu kien il-Bord tal-Appell] biex jikkunsidraw li l-Kunsill Lokali ta’ tas-Sliema, l-għaqdiet ambjentali u l-Awtoritá tal-Ambjent ma kellhomx dritt li jippreżentaw  dan l-appell.

Tafu għaliex?

Għax kull wieħed minnhom kellu rappreżentant fil-Bord tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar meta din ħadet id-deċiżjoni dwar it-torri ta’ Townsquare.

Uħud minnkom forsi tiftakru kemm kien hemm min ftaħar li s-separazzjoni tal-Ippjanar mill-Ambjent kien ser iwassal għal iżjed attenzjoni u fuq kollox li l-Awtoritá tal-Ambjent kien ser ikollha id-dritt mhux biss li tipparteċipa fil-Bord imma li fuq kollox kien ser ikollha d-dritt li tappella mid-deċiżjonijiet tal-Ippjanar biex tħares l-ambjent aħjar.

L-Avukat Robert Abela jidher li għandu ideat differenti minn dawk li ħabbru diversi Ministri fil-Parlament.

Inkella, dawn l-istess Ministri ppruvaw jgħadduk biż-żmien!

The Paceville Master Plan: a preliminary peek

paceville

 

In an event marking European Mobility Week, Transport Minister Joe Mizzi announced various initiatives which, if properly implemented would contribute to a reduction in the amount of congestion on our roads. Studies on the feasibility of a tram service, car-sharing and bike-sharing, as well as e-bike schemes are all welcome initiatives.

Barely 48 hours after Minister Mizzi had made his announcements, the Planning Authority published a draft Paceville master plan for public consultation which also contains a number of transport related initiatives. It is entitled Paceville. Malta’s prime coastal location. Development Framework. Given the almost simultaneous announcements, it is not known whether there was any consultation with the  Transport Ministry.

The proposed master plan seeks to establish parameters for the further development or redevelopment of Paceville in view of the high concentration of large-scale development projects in the area, most of which are still in the pipeline, including various proposals for the development of high-rise buildings. Readers will remember that, way back in 2008, a Professor Mir Ali from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USA had advised the then MEPA on the urban design strategy to be adopted when considering the future of tall buildings in Malta. (Tall Buildings: the advice ignored by the Maltese authorities TMIS, 26 June)

Professor Ali had then emphasised the need to draw up a master plan identifying and addressing the impacts of tall buildings.  This advice was ignored when the Floor Area Ratio policy was drawn up by the Planning Authority. Likewise, it was ignored regarding development proposals currently under consideration in Sliema – notably on the Tignè peninsula.

The Mott-Macdonald draft master plan for Paceville is a vindication of Professor Mir Ali’s advice. Professor Ali stressed that Malta needed to pull up its socks on issues of public transport, irrespective of whether high-rise buildings are developed or not. An efficient, integrated and sustainable public transport system is essential in under-pinning the essential infrastructure for tall buildings. Way back in 2008  Professor Mir Ali had emphasised that this must cover the whole of Malta and Gozo and should not be limited to just Paceville!

The Mott-Macdonald draft master plan puts forward three options through which it presents two contrasting transport strategies for public discussion. The first option, entitled Sustainable Transport Strategy seeks to reduce the dominance of the car and places considerable emphasis on the pedestrianisation of Paceville (including the pedestrianisation of coast), cycling facilities and bike sharing schemes, and seeks to ensure that  public transport is within easy reach – not more than a four-minute walk away.

The second option, aptly labelled Car-Based Transport Strategy defends the car’s dominance on our roads and puts the emphasis on reducing congestion by improving road intersections and better traffic management through an intelligent transport system and also proposes the introduction of a tunnel to be bored beneath Paceville. The third option, misleadingly labelled as the Balanced Transport Strategy, is a mixture of the first two options with the proposed tunnel shifted to the edge of Paceville.

The Mott-Macdonald draft strategy suggests that the third option is the preferred option.

During the coming six weeks (the length of the consultation period) we will have the opportunity to dissect the different transport strategies as well as the other proposals in the draft master plan. The draft is over 200 pages long and deals with various development, transport and infrastructural options of relevance to the various Paceville development proposals and is to be implemented over a number of years.

It is right and proper that the impacts of the extensive developments projected for Paceville are examined cumulatively and in a holistic manner. Such an attitude and methodology, if maintained throughout, can only lead to workable solutions that will benefit everyone’s.

It does, however, inevitably beg the question: why is all this applicable to Paceville but ignored in respect of the Tignè peninsula in Sliema, as well as elsewhere else?

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday, 25 September 2016