Skola taċ-Chiswick f’Pembroke ma tagħmilx sens

L-applikazzjoni tal-ippjanar biex tkun effettivament trasferita l-iskola taċ-Chiswick mill-Kappara għal Pembroke tiftaħ kapitlu ġdid fl-opposizzjoni għall-oxxenitajiet tal-ippjanar li qed ifaqqsu madwarna kuljum. L-art proposta mhiex barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp (ODZ). Fil-fatt is-sit identifikat għall-iżvilupp propost b’kejl ta’ 15,900 metru kwadru qiegħed fiż-żona tal-iżvilupp.

Għalfejn għandna nopponu din il-proposta? Hemm numru ta’ raġunijiet għaliex din l-applikazzjoni ta’ żvilupp għandha tkun abortita, illum qabel għada.

Daqqa t’għajn lejn il-Pjan Lokali li nirreferu għalih bħala North Harbours Local Plan (li jikkonċerna ukoll lill-Pembroke) jagħtina l-iktar raġun bażika l-għaliex din l-applikazzjoni l-anqas biss kellha tkun ippreżentata. L-art li ġiet identifikata, tifforma parti minn art ikbar li l-Pjan Lokali, li kien approvat fl-2006, jidentifika bħala li għandha tkun soġġetta għal eżerċizzju ta’ ippjanar metikoluż u li dwarha għandu joħroġ dokument imsejjaħ Pembroke Development Brief. Fil-pjanta intitolata Pembroke Policy Map li qed tidher ma dan l-artiklu, l-art in kwistjoni hi mdawra b’ċirku aħmar.

Il-Pjan Lokali jispjega b’mod ċar l-iskop li għandu jintlaħaq mill-Pembroke Development Brief, li s’issa għadu ma ġiex ippubblikat għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika.

L-ebda wieħed mill-oġġettivi stabbiliti mill-Pjan Lokali għall-Pembroke Development Brief Area ma jittratta dwar skejjel jew edukazzjoni. L-erba’ oġġettivi msemmija fil-fatt jittrattaw użu li jiġġenera impiegi ta’ natura mhux industrijali, użu assoċjat mat-tgawdija tal-ħin ħieles, Ċentru Lokali u qasam residenzjali privat. Meta l-Pembroke Development Brief ikun ippubbikat għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika għandu jippreżenta gwida dettaljata dwar kif dawn l-oġġettivi għandhom jintlaħqu.

Il-Pjan Lokali jistabilixxi ukoll l-obbligi ta’ l-ippjanar li għandhom ikunu ndirizzati mill-Pembroke Development Brief. Dawn huma: 1. titjib komprensiv tal-infrastruttura, 2. li l-inħawi (ta’ Pembroke) ikunu pprovduti b’aċċess aħjar għat-trasport pubbliku, 3. titjib tas-sistema tat-toroq fil-lokalitá b’mod partikolari kif it-toroq li jagħtu għal Triq Reġjonali jaqdu liż-żona fejn hemm l-iskejjel, 4. Il-kostruzzjoni ta’ triq bejn Triq Reġjonali u s-sit li jkopri l-Pembroke Development Brief, u dan flimkien ma titjib lis-sistema tat-toroq arterjali u lokali li jirriżulta neċessarju wara studju dwar l-impatt tat-trasport, 5. titjib f’St. Patrick’s Park u 6. titjib tal-ispazji miftuħa .

Hu ċar li l-proposta għal skola ġdida fi Triq Gabriele Henin kantuniera ma Triq il-Mediterranean Pembroke ma tirriżultax mill-Pjan Lokali applikabbli, anzi hi f’kunflitt miegħu. Allura għalfejn l-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar qed tippermetti li din l-applikazzjoni tibqa’ pendenti? Ma jkunx aħjar kieku l-awtoritá tikkonkludi l-eżami ta’ din l-applikazzjoni bla telf ta’ żmien meta hu ċar li tmur kontra dak li jipprovdi l-Pjan Lokali? Meta l-affarijiet huma daqshekk ċari għalfejn id-dewmien meta setgħet tingħata tweġiba definittiva f’ħames minuti? Meta timxi b’dan il-mod l-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar tagħti l-messaġġ li l-Pjan Lokali l-anqas jiswa’ l-karta li hu stampat fuqha!

L-iskola taċ-Chiswick li presentement qegħda fil-Kappara, tul is-snin kellha impatt mhux żgħir fuq il-kwalitá tal-ħajja tar-residenti tal-Kappara. Jekk l-iskola tiċċaqlaq lejn Pembroke dawn il-problemi kollha jkun esportati lejn Pembroke biex jiżdiedu ma dawk tal-iskejjel li diġa hemm f’dik il-lokalitá. Ċertament din l-iskola pproġettata mhux ser ittejjeb il-kwalitá tal-ħajja tar-residenti ta’ Pembroke: anzi tkompli titfagħhom lura.

L- Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar għandha responsabbiltá li tħares lir-residenti ta’ Pembroke u li tkun t-tarka tagħhom huma u jitqabdu biex itejbu l-kwalitá tal-ħajja tagħhom.

Huwa importanti mhux biss li jkollna deċiżjonijiet tajba, imma ukoll li dawn ma jdumux ma jittieħdu iktar milli meħtieġ. Għax l-iskola taċ-Chiswick f’Pembroke ma tagħmilx sens.

Imma, sfortunatament mal- Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar qatt ma taf fejn int.

ippubblikat f’Illum : 13 t’Awwissu 2017

Proposed Chiswick Pembroke school is a non-starter

The planning application to effectively transfer Chiswick School from Kappara to Pembroke opens a new chapter in opposing land-use planning atrocities which seem to sprout every other day. The site proposed for development, measuring 15,900 square metres is not Outside the Development Zone (ODZ). In fact it is within scheme.

So why oppose the proposal? There are a number of reasons why this planning application, even though just an outline application at this stage, should be aborted, the soonest the better.

A cursory look at the North Harbours Local Plan (which deals with Pembroke in addition to a number of other areas) gives a very clear basic reason why this application should not even have been submitted. The selected site forms part of a larger area which the Local Plan, approved in 2006, identifies as the Pembroke Development Brief Area. The site, circled on the Pembroke Policy Map shown on this page, is subject to Local Plan Policy NHPE 09 which policy explains in detail the objectives that the Pembroke Development Brief should aim at when published for public consultation.

None of the objectives listed in the Local Plan for the Pembroke Development Brief Area involves schools or education. In fact, the four specified objectives are: non-industrial employment generating uses of a national/regional catchment area, leisure uses, a Local Centre and private sector housing. The Pembroke Development Brief, when drafted and published for public consultation, should present detailed guidance as to how these objectives will be attained.

The Local Plan also establishes that key planning obligations of development within the Pembroke Development Brief Area will include: 1. a comprehensive infrastructural improvement; 2. the provision of better access to the area by public transport; 3. the upgrading of the existing Regional Road Junction that serves Suffolk Road and the schools area; 4. the construction of the link road from this junction to the Pembroke Development Brief Site, and other improvements to the arterial and local road network deemed appropriate through the recommendations of a Transport Impact Statement (TIS); 5. the upgrading of St. Patrick’s Park and 6. the upgrading of open spaces.

It is clear that the proposal for a new school as proposed in Gabriele Henin Street corner with Mediterranean Street Pembroke does not feature in the provisions of the North Harbours Local Plan. So why has the Planning Authority permitted this application to proceed so far? Should it not have submitted an immediate recommendation for refusal on the grounds of a clear and unequivocal conflict with the provisions of the North Harbours Local Plan? Why does the Planning Authority procrastinate when it could have given a clear and definite answer within five minutes and thereby transmit a clear message that when push comes to shove, the Local Plans are worth the paper they are printed on?

Over the years, Chiswick School, currently in Kappara has had a negative impact on the daily lives of Kappara residents. Exporting these problems to another area will not serve any positive purpose. It will only make the lives of Pembroke residents – already struggling to cope with the impact of the large number of schools already in their area – more miserable.

The Planning Authority owes a duty of care to Pembroke residents. Acting expeditiously is as important as acting correctly. It is clear that the proposed Chiswick School at Pembroke is a non-starter. But over the years I have learnt one thing: with the Planning Authority you never know where you stand.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 13 August 2017

Serqa fid-dawl tax-xemx: min jidher u min ma jidhirx

Two Towers on ITS site

 

It-tender dwar żvilupp turistiku fuq l-art tal-ITS (Institute of Tourism Studies) ilu li għalaq. Ilna nisimgħu li hemm ħadma kbira.

Is-Sunday Times tal-lum f’artiklu ta’ Caroline Muscat tagħtina l-istorja bażika.

L-offerti intefgħu minn Silvio Debono tas-Seabank Group : offra €6.5 miljuni għal art tal-qies ta’ madwar 25,000 metru kwadru (iva: ħamsa u għoxrin elf metru kwadru, qed taqra tajjeb).

Din l-art li l-pjan lokali [North Harbours Local Plan] jiddeskrivi bħala Entertainment Priority Area tiswa’ ferm iktar minn hekk. Ċertament mhux inqas minn €100 miljun. Probabilment viċin il-€120 miljun.

S’issa l-art għadha ma ġietx trasferita imma wieħed mill-ágenti tal-propjetà diġa qiegħed jaċċetta deposits għal appartamenti lussużi li huma ippjanati għaż-żona, inkuż fis-żewġ torrijiet li hemm ippjanati.

Biex Silvio Debono, permezz tal-kumpaniji tiegħu, tefa’ offerta daqshekk baxxa għal art li għandha potenzjal enormi, bil-fors li għandu rasu mistrieħa li mhux ser ikollu diffikultajiet li jinfetħulu l-bibien għal biċċa “business” tajba.

Bil-fors li jitqanqlu suspetti kbar. Dwar min qed jidher u min possibilment ma jidhirx f’din is-serqa. Għax dan mhux “business” imma serq fid-dawl tax-xemx.

Huwa l-kaz ta’ investigazzjoni mhux biss mill-Awditur Ġenerali imma ukoll mill-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija. Illum qabel għada.

Land Speculation at White Rocks

Having first class sports facilities in Malta is an objective which everyone shares. Hence the point at issue, in my view, is not whether a sports complex should be developed but how this can be done and the manner in which it should be financed.

The government has opted for direct negotiations with the selected partners. Was it right in directly selecting the proposed developers and negotiating away from the spotlight of tendering rules and procedures which a normal democratic society imposes?

My view is that the method of selection clearly indicates the government’s disdain for transparency and accountability, even if the final deal will eventually be presented for Parliament’s approval. Removing the major part of the process from the continuous scrutiny of the public institutions set up purposely for their examination, is a clear indication of what could lie in store. Comments have already surfaced as to the ethical credentials of those selected as partners.

An eventual agreement will consist of two elements: the provision of the sports facilities and a prime site residential development consisting of around 300 residential units. The second element is intended to finance the first, the land being made available by the taxpayer through publicly-owned land.

Three documents need to be examined in order to identify the applicable parameters and the considerations to be made.

The first document of relevance is the Development Brief for the White Rocks site issued by the then Planning Authority in 1995. Even if then the proposed development was for an “upmarket tourism project” the development parameters drawn up are of extreme relevance to today’s discussion.

The site, the brief informs us, has a total area of 36.9 hectares. This is subdivided into three zones. Zone 1, having an area of 38 per cent of the total, consists of the existing holiday complex and its facilities. Zone 2 (39 per cent of the area) consists of a mixed garigue and rocky coastline, including the marine environment and archaeological resources. Zone 3 (23 per cent of the area) consists of agricultural land.

The 1995 brief laid out that only Zone 1 was to be released for development. The brief identified one exception: an underground structure in Zone 2 which was to be rehabilitated and in respect of which no extension of its footprint was to be considered.

The second document of relevance to the White Rocks site is the North Harbour Local Plan approved in August 2006. This document, in addition to ignoring any development potential of the White Rocks site, defines it as a “green wedge”. Now, to my mind this means that no development is permissible on the site.

The third document of relevance is the Habitats Directive of the EU applicable to these islands as of May 2004. Zone 1 of the White Rocks site is adjacent to a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which has been so declared by Malta and approved by the EU Commission. This spills over into Zone 2 described above.

Now the only development permissible in SACs is that which is necessary for the management of the site. The Habitats Directive further lays down that activities on sites adjacent to SACs are restricted too, such that they serve as a buffer zone and are not the indirect cause of damage to the said SACs.

If the above parameters are adhered to, it is not at all clear which sports facilities can be developed on the White Rocks site. Given that Zone 1 covers 38 per cent of the total area, the space is limited both in terms of area as well as in terms of potential for the development of sports facilities. This would leave unanswered questions as to where the 300 projected residential units intended as payment for services rendered by the developing consortium are to be built.

One hopes that in planning the development of the sports complex the limits identified in the 1995 development brief will not be ignored.

Given the development parameters established in 1995, to which one must now add the responsibilities derived from the EU Habitats Directive of the European Union, it is doubtful whether the White Rocks site is suitable for development as a sports complex of the extent indicated by the Prime Minister and other government spokesmen.

Furthermore, it is neither possible nor acceptable to develop 300 residential units on the site to settle the costs of this development.

This is just land speculation in its crudest form. In an overdeveloped Malta the least one expects is a government engaging in speculative development in order to settle its bills and simultaneously claiming that the environment is one of its main policy pillars!

One wonders whose advice government is listening to. At times it seems that it has retained its Xagħra l-Ħamra advisors: those that had convinced it to promote a golf course without having first understood its environmental implications. Governments never learn.

published in The Times of Malta, July 3, 2010