Unbridled Development: on whose side is the state?

After years of supporting unbridled development the Labour Party in government is trying to signal that, after all, it is on the side of the vulnerable, those who are continuously trampled by developers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a result of the Sofia inquiry report, the BCA (Building and Construction Authority), on government’s instructions, issued a call for architects (and lawyers) to offer their services to assist those third parties impacted by development.

The current initiative is a positive step forward but, in my opinion, it is insufficient as it subjects the available assistance to instructions from the BCA. It is the BCA which decides whether and to what extent professional assistance is required.

A 13-page document was issued by the BCA on March 9, entitled “Expression of Interest. Invitation for the Provision of Periti to provide professional assistance to third parties”.

The service to be provided and paid for by BCA shall presumably cover advice relative to a description of the development, as well as the method statements submitted by the developer’s advisors. It will also cover inspections and the required estimates in the eventuality of damage sustained as a result of the development under consideration.

It is however not clear whether taking the BCA itself to task is covered by the said expression of interest. I am saying this because the professional service to be provided is subject to “the specific administrative instructions of the authority” as per paragraph 1.4 of the BCA expression of interest document.  This signifies that the BCA itself must authorize, for example, the seeking of advice to contest the way in which the BCA itself operates as well as to how it decides on specific cases.

This is just one aspect of the problems to be faced. The issues that should have been addressed are much wider and deeper than what is being acknowledged by the conditions of the expression of interest document.

Consider, for example, ground floor properties forming part of a two-storey development originally approved many years ago. When the existing development at first floor (and the overlying airspace) is purchased by developers with the intent to redevelop as a block of flats, it is hell for the ground floor residents. All sorts of pressures are resorted to in order to ensure that, as far as possible, residents acquiesce and shut up.

In such cases the ground/foundation condition reports being submitted leave much to be desired. It is logical that residents in ground-floor properties are reluctant to have their properties subjected to tests and sample boreholes in order that the prevalent geological conditions are identified. In the absence of this information, developers and their advisors are taking short cuts and making several. at times, incorrect assumptions as to the prevalent geological conditions on site. This is being done in order to give a clean bill of health to the proposed development.

Faced with such a situation some succumb to pressure from developers and consider moving out of their homes as a result, providing the desired carte blanche for the developers.

Is this fair? Yet this is what will eventually happen in a number of cases. In fact, it is already happening.

This is not a matter which can be adequately dealt with by the BCA after the development permit has been issued by the Planning Authority. It must be dealt with before the planning application is even submitted. Only then can one safely say that the legislator and the relative authorities are on the side of the downtrodden.

In simple words, it is much better to avoid the creation of a mess then having to deal with the not so pleasant consequences. This is how the vulnerable can be served.

Published in Times of Malta: Sunday 17 March 2024

When caves collapse: people may be killed

On the 14 September the Planning Authority approved application PA3487/19 which proposed the   “stabilization of dangerous rock slope; repair to deteriorated concrete wall and construction of wave dissipation slope along the Qui Si Sana coastline”.

In simple language this involves a permit for remedial works after a cave along the Sliema Qui Si Sana coastline collapsed, thereby exposing the MIDI development works immediately behind the cave: the basement level of residential blocks T14 and T17.

We have been told that the cave collapsed as a result of erosion along the coastline. Some readers may tend to forget that way back in 2016, a Maltese geologist had sounded the alarm that a “high-rise had been constructed over a fractured and eroded sea cliff, which could collapse any time soon.” The collapse in fact occurred relatively quite soon, signifying that the geologist was pointing out the obvious which was being ignored or not given due consideration by the developer and his advisors.

The point to be made is why the Planning Authority permitted the development to take place so close to the coastline. As far as I am aware, the EIA relative to the Tigne Development by MIDI does not reveal any detailed studies on the condition of the coast as well as on the impacts of erosion on the Qui Si Sana coastline and its relevance to the development of the MIDI project. The issue is not just one of remedial works but on why the Planning Authority  ignored the state of the coast, as a result permitting development too close to the coastline for comfort. The collapse is adequate proof of all this. The Planning Authority has much to explain in this specific case. Its actions, or lack of them, should be investigated.

The issue is not one relative to the structural stability of the development but of the protection of the coastline.

Erosion as a result of natural elements occurs continuously. It is a natural ongoing phenomenon.

In this respect it may be pertinent to draw attention to a report, authored by a team of geologists, dated October 2007 and entitled : “Report on Coastal Sliema. Geology, geomorphology, sites of scientific interest and coastal protection considerations.” This report was commissioned by the Sliema Local Council.

The 50-page report, which makes interesting reading, emphasises that a number of sites along the Sliema coast “are undergoing rapid coastal erosion that will increase with climate change, resulting in instability or failure in coastal infrastructure.”

Of particular interest is that the report, authored in 2007, goes on to state that “The faulted coast along Għar id-Dud is retreating rapidly by dislodgement of boulders along joints and faults. Public structures that may be affected include Tower Road promenade. The Għar id-Dud cave may also partially or totally collapse, leading to the caving-in of the overlying pedestrian promenade. If collapse is sudden and during daytime/early night time, injury and loss of lives may result.”

I have personally drawn attention of the Transport Minister to the above some time ago, however to date I am not aware that any action has been taken.

The matter was already very worrying way back in 2007 and most probably it is even worse now, after thirteen years, given that no coastal protection works have been taken in hand in the area in the intervening period.

The Għar id-Dud cave is the result of natural erosion and collapse accelerated by wave action. This is a natural process that cannot be halted unless adequate coastal protection works are initiated. If nature is left on its own, the end result is quite predictable: a complete collapse of Għar id-Dud, a caving in of the overlying pedestrian promenade and a number of dead or injured pedestrians, depending on the time of day when a collapse possibly occurs.

Will Transport Malta and the other authorities wake up from their slumber and act immediately please?

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 27 September 2020

Għar id-Dud u l-ERA

Il-Malta Today, il-bieraħ, f’artiklu intitolat MIDI seeks coastal protection for tower block after cave collapse tkellmet dwar għar fil-ponta ta’ Tigne li sfronda s-saqaf tiegħu u li per konsegwenza ta’ dan inkixfu l-pedamenti tal-blokk Q2 wieħed minn ta’ l-aħħar li nbnew fil-peninżola ta’ Tigne bħala parti mill-proġett tal-MIDI.

L-iżviluppaturi qed jgħidu li dan seħħ bħala riżultat ta’ proċessi naturali – jiġifieri l-impatt tal-mewġ f’żona li hi esposta għall-elementi. Imma l-Awtorità għall Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) qed tgħid li anke jekk in-natura effettwat, hemm ukoll impatt riżultanti mill-iżvilupp.

Polemika li irridu naraw kif ser tiżviluppa.

Imma sadanittant ikun għaqli li l-ERA tara sewwa x’inhu jiġri f’għerien oħra fl-inħawi.
Infakkar li b’inizjattiva tal-Kunsill Lokali ta’ Tas-Sliema, 12-il sena ilu, kien tħejja rapport ġejoloġiku li kif inhu xieraq jiffoka ukoll dwar il-ħarsien tal-kosta ta’ Tas-Sliema.

Għaddew tnax il-sena u t-twissijiet li fih ir-rapport għadhom validi. Anzi, pjuttost huma ta’ natura iktar urġenti milli kienu 12-il sena ilu, għax, probabbilment li sadanittant ma sar xejn jew kważi xejn.

Fost l-osservazzjonijiet fir-rapport (f’paġna 15) hemm din :
“The faulted coast along Għar id-Dud is retreating rapidly by dislodgement of boulders along joints and faults. Public structures that may be affected include Tower Road promenade. The Għar id-Dud cave may also partially or totally collapse, leading to the caving-in of the overlying pedestrian promenade. If collapse is sudden and during daytime/early night time, injury and loss of lives may result.”

Meta ser nagħtu kas? Meta jisfronda l-għar?

Jekk iweġġgħu jew imutu n-nies min ser jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà? Inutli nwaħħlu fin-natura!