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

It-Torri tat-Toyota

Il-bieraħ attendejt għal laqgħa tar-residenti ta’ Ħaż-Żebbuġ li issejħet biex ir-residenti jiddiskutu l-impatti tat-Torri tat-Toyota li dwaru saret applikazzjoni ta’ żvilupp (outline) riċentement.

Ir-residenti huma inkwetati u bir-raġun, għax dan it-torri mhux postu hemm.

Tajjeb li ngħid mill-ewwel li imkien fil-policies tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ma hemm indikat li jista’ jinbena dan it-tip ta’ bini ġo Ħaż-Żebbuġ.

L-impatti fuq in-nies huma bosta.

L-iktar waħda ovvja hi li ser ikerraħ l-iskyline ta’ Ħaż-Żebbuġ. Imma ser jiġġenera iktar traffiku f’post li għax hu żviluppat kważi kollu għar-residenzi ma jiflaħ dan it-traffiku kollu.

Ser jiġġenera iktar dellijiet fuqil-propjetajiet tal-viċin, li, fejn għandhom il-pannelli fotovoltajċi jew solar water heaters, naħseb li jistgħu jaħsbu biex jarmuhom!

Issa jidher li waslet id-daqqa ta’ Ħaż-Żebbuġ. Ir-residenti għandhom bżonn l-għajnuna u l-appoġġ. Ngħinuhom u nappoġġawhom kif appoġġajna lil kull min kellu bżonn l-għajnuna fil-ġlieda kontinwa kontra l-iżvilupp bla rażan, li ma jirrispetta lil ħadd.

Marsa: a planning mess

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

The financing of Fawlty Towers

The saga of the Mrieħel and the Townsquare towers is now entering a new phase, with the planning appeal stopwatch due to start ticking shortly –  most probably towards the end of the month. It is known that, so far, Sliema Local Council and a number of environmental NGOs will be appealing against the 4 August decision of the Planning Authority to approve the “Fawlty Towers” at Mrieħel and Townsquare Sliema .

Financing of the projects is next. The banks cannot increase their already substantial exposure to loans that are dependent on building speculation. Consequently, the developers will inevitably have to seek the involvement of private citizens and, possibly, institutional investors. Most probably, the process for financing the projects has already commenced; it will involve the issuing of bonds to the public and will normally be sponsored by a bank and a stock-broking agency.

The bank or banks and stockbrokers sponsoring the bond issue will have to ensure that the bonds are subject to an “appropriateness and suitability testing” subject to such direction as the Malta Financial Services Authority  may consider necessary and suitable. Also, in the light of past local unpleasant experiences, the Authority will undoubtedly be guided by the need to ensure  that prospective investors fully understand the inherent risks of the proposed investments.  It will also ensure that detailed information is published in the form of a suitable prospectus in which the small print is both legible and understandable.

Those who finance the high-rise projects should shoulder responsibility for their impact together with the Planning Authority and the developers. They will potentially make it happen, so they should carry the can. It is important to get this message through: those who will invest in the Gasan and Tumas bonds intended to finance the “Fawlty  Towers”  should receive more than a monetary return on their investment. The moment they sign up they will also assume co-responsibility – with the developers, the Planning Authority, the bank or banks and the sponsoring stockbrokers – for this projected development .

Word is going around on the need to boycott the services and products placed on the market by the Gasan and Tumas Groups. Journalist Jürgen Balzan, writing in Malta Today described these services and products as being wide-ranging (hotels, car-dealerships, gaming, finance and property) which easily impact on the daily life of a substantial number of Maltese citizens. However, such a boycott’s only link with  the “Fawlty  Towers”  would be through the owners.  It would be preferable for a boycott to have a direct link with the offensive action.  In this context, the forthcoming bond issue to finance the “Fawlty  Towers”  presents itself as a suitable opportunity.

A boycott is a non-violent instrument of protest that is perfectly legitimate in a democratic society. The boycotting of the forthcoming bond issue would send a clear message that people will not be complicit in further ruining the  urban fabric of Sliema and ensure that development at Imrieħel is such that the historic landscape is fully respected.

A social impact assessment, if properly carried out, would have revealed the apprehensions of the residents in particular the residents on the Tignè peninsula. But, unfortunately, as stated by Sliema Green Local Councillor Michael Briguglio, the existing policy-making process tends to consider such studies as an irritant rather than as a tool for holistic management and community participation.

We have had some recent converts on the desirability of social impact assessments, such as Professor Alex Torpiano, Dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment at the University of Malta. Prof. Torpiano, in an opinion piece published by the Malta Independent this week, stressed that spatial planning in Malta needs a social-economic dimension. Unfortunately, I do not recollect the professor himself practising these beliefs as the leading architect in the MIDI and Cambridge projects on the Tignè peninsula,  a stone’s throw from Townsquare!

Investing in this bond issue is not another private decision: it will have an enormous impact on the community.

Responsibility for this ever-increasing environmental mess has to be shouldered by quite a few persons in Malta. Even the banks have a very basic responsibility – and not one to be shouldered just by the Directors: the shareholders should also take an interest before decisions are taken and not post-factum.

I understand that the Directors of APS Bank have already taken note of the recent  statements regarding the environment by  Archbishop Charles Scicluna. As such, it stands to reason that APS will (I hope) not be in any way associated with the financing process for the “Fawlty  Towers”.  However, there is no news as yet from the other banks, primarily from the major ones – ie Bank of Valletta and HSBC.

This is a defining moment in environmental action in Malta. It is time for those that matter to stand up to be counted – and the sooner the better.

published by the Malta Independent on Sunday – 21 August 2016

Boycott ta’ Gasan u Tumas? X’inhi l-mira?

 

L-iskop ta’ Martin Scicluna u Edward Mallia li jħeġġu boycott tas-servizzi u prodotti li joffru l-kumpaniji fil-gruppi ta’ Gasan u Tumas għandu intenzjonijiet tajba.  Imma l-boycott avolja għandu l-merti tiegħu hu arma qadima u biex ikun effettiv irid jitħaddem sewwa fuq tul ta’ żmien.

Hu iktar għaqli li l-familja ambjentalista tpoġġi fil-mira l-proċess tal-finanzjament tal-proġetti nfushom.

Fil-mira għandu jkun hemm il-bonds li jridu jinħarġu, il-bank u l-istockbroker li jieħdu ħsieb is-sejħa għax-xiri tal-bonds.

Azzjoni ta’ din ix-xorta tista’ tkun iktar effettiva għax l-impatt tagħha ikun direttament relatat għall-proġetti tat-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel u Townsquare infushom.

Il-klijenti ta’ Victor Axiak u Timothy Gambin

 

Fl-artiklu tagħha tal-bieraħ il-Ħadd fuq is-Sunday Times intitolat Of hats and despicability, Claire Bonello identifikat problema oħra kbira konnessa mal-proċess tal-permessi tat-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel u Tas-Sliema (Townsquare).

Victor Axiak u Timothy Gambin fil-passat riċenti kellhom fost il-klijenti tagħhom lill-gruppi ta’ Gasan u ta’ Tumas li jiffurmaw parti mill-konsortium li twaqqaf għall-Power Station tal-Gass f’Delimara. Għalihom Victor Axiak u Timothy Gambin għamlu xogħol li kien jikkonsisti fi studji dwar impatti ambjentali ta’ dak il-proġett. Axiak dwar l-ekoloġija marittima u Gambin dwar l-arkejoloġija marittima. Ir-ritratt ta’ hawn fuq juri paġna mir-rapport tal-EIA dwar il-power station li taħdem bil-gass f’Delimara bl-ismijiet ta’ Axiak u Gambin u l-oqsma li rrappurtaw dwarhom.

Il-mistoqsija ċara hi jekk hux etiku li Axiak u Gambin jieħdu sehem f’laqgħat tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar li fihom jagħtu l-opinjoni u jiddeċiedu dwar applikazzjonijiet tal-klijenti tagħhom.

Axiak ma attendiex għal uħud mil-laqgħat. Imma la hu u l-anqas Gambin ma ħassew il-ħtieġa li jgħidu li għandhom xi konflitt ta’ interess. Din x’serjetà hi?

L-imġieba korretta mhiex qegħda għall-politiċi biss iżda ukoll għal kull min hu involut fit-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet.

The professor who messed things up

 

Professor Victor Axiaq, Chairman of the Environment and Resources Authority, is not at fault for being absent at a Planning Authority public meeting on the 4 August which discussed the Mrieħel and Sliema high-rise applications. By now everyone is aware that he had just been discharged from hospital and was instructed to rest for 15 days.

There were various officers of the Environment and Resources Authority present for the 4 August public meeting, yet instead of entrusting one of them with presenting the environment’s case on the Sliema high-rise, Professor Axiaq preferred to entrust Dr Timothy Gambin with a memorandum which Gambin opted to keep to himself.

There were various environmentalists, Sliema Local Councillors and civil society activists present for the public hearing. Those of us who were present for the public hearing presented the environment case and managed to convince six out of 13 Planning Authority members to vote against the proposed high-rise at TownSquare Sliema. Support for the environment case from a representative of the Environment and Resources Authority during the public hearing would have been most welcome. It could also have had a determining impact.  Yet it was not forthcoming notwithstanding the presence of a number of the Environment and Resources Authority employees at the public hearing.

The split of MEPA into two separate and distinct authorities, we were irresponsibly told by Government representatives some months ago, would ensure that the environmental issues would be more easily defended when considering land use planning applications. Yet prior to the split, an official of The Environment Protection Directorate would have addressed the public hearing. On the 4 August none were invited. The only person who was briefed to speak (Dr Timothy Gambin) opted instead to ignore his brief and instead openly supported the development proposal for a high-rise at TownSquare.

Professor Victor Axiaq, as Chairman of the Environment and Resources Authority, missed the opportunity to contribute to convince the majority of members of the Planning Authority due to his two basic mistakes. He entrusted his memorandum to another Planning Authority member (Dr Timothy Gambin) who had opposing views and hence had no interest in communicating Professor Axiaq’s memorandum on TownSquare to the Planning Authority. Professor Axiaq also failed to engage with his own staff at the Environment and Resources Authority as none of those present for the public hearing uttered a single word in support of the case against the high-rise proposal. The person sitting on the chair next to me, for example, preferred to communicate continuously with his laptop correcting with track changes some report he was working on. I have no idea why he even bothered to be present for the public hearing.

Unfortunately, Professor Axiaq, as chairman of the Environment and Resources Authority, messed up the first opportunity at which the input of the authority he leads could have made a substantial difference in the actual decision taken. It would have been much better if a proper decision was taken on the 4 August instead of subsequently considering whether to present an appeal, as this will be an uphill struggle as anyone with experience in these matters can confirm.  This could only have happened if Professor Axiaq had acted appropriately, which he unfortunately did not.

Next Wednesday, the Sliema Local Council will be convened for an extraordinary session in order to discuss the planning appeal relative to the TownSquare high-rise development permit. Environmental NGOs will also be meeting presently to plot the way forward and consider whether they too will appeal the decision.

Even the Environment and Resources Authority will be shortly considering whether to appeal. In view of the way in which Professor Axiaq handled the whole issue, the Sliema Local Council and the environmental NGOs would do well if they do not place any trust in the Authority led by Professor Victor Axiaq. They will avoid ending up in another mess.

After creating this mess, there is only one option left for Professor Victor Axiaq in my opinion. He should immediately resign from his post as chairman of the Environment and Resources Authority. The sooner he resigns the better.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 14 August 2016

L-ambjent marid bħall-Professur Axiaq

 

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra ċ-Ċhairman tal-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi, l-Professur Victor Axiaq għax kien marid, kien jaf li ma kienx ser jattendi għal-laqgħa tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-laqgħa kellha tiddiskuti it-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel u ta’ Townsquare f’tas-Sliema. Huwa għaldaqstant  kiteb il-fehmiet tiegħu dwar dawn it-torrijiet f’email. Din l-email għaddiha lil Dr Timothy Gambin, membru huwa ukoll tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u awtorizzah biex, fid-diskrezzjoni tiegħu, jaqra dawn il-fehmiet waqt il-laqgħa tal-Awtorità.

Għaliex il-Professur għadda l-kummenti tiegħu lil Dr Gambin? Mhux aħjar kieku għaddihom liċ-Ċhairman tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar Vince Cassar biex b’hekk il-membri kollha tal-Awtorità jkunu jafu l-fehmiet tiegħu?  Għaliex kien jaf Dr Timothy Gambin biss? Stramba! Mhux soltu għall-Professur li joqgħod lura milli jkun ċar ma kulħadd.

Il-Professur Axiaq inħatar membru tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar biex jirrappreżenta lill-Awtorità tal-Ambjent. Fid-dibattitu biex il-MEPA tinqasam fi tnejn, b’falsità kbira, diversi esponenti tal-Gvern kienu qalu li l-ambjent kien ser ikollu leħen iktar determinanti u b’saħħtu meta jittieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet. Imma fis-siegħa tal-prova, il-leħen tal-ambjent kien marid bħall-Professur Victor Axiaq, u allura ma nstemax. Bid-differenza li fil-waqt li lill-Professur nawguralu li ma jdumx ma jgħaddilu, għall-ambjent jidher li għad hemm ħafna diffikultajiet.

Il-Malta Today dan l-aħħar tkellmet dwar il-fatt li nafu x’qal il-Professur Axiaq dwar it-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel. Dan minħabba li Dr Timothy Gambin waqt il-laqgħa tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar qara silta mill-email fis-seduta ta’ fil-għodu, waqt id-diskussjoni dwar l-applikazzjoni għat-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel. Imma waranofsinnhar, meta kien hemm is-seduta pubblika dwar l-applikazzjoni għat-torri ta’ Tas-Sliema, Dr Gambin ma qarax fil-pubbliku dak li qal il-Professur Axiaq dwar Townsquare.

Il-mistoqsija hi għaliex Dr Timothy Gambin ma qalilniex x’jaħseb il-Professur Victor Axiaq dwar it-Torri ta’ Tas-Sliema? Dr Gambin biss jista’ jgħidilna għaliex huwa żamm l-informazzjoni għalih. Għaliex għamel hekk, hu biss jaf, s’issa. Dejjem sakemm ma jkollux il-kuraġġ li jitkellem il-Professur Victor Axiaq.

Imma, forsi, l-Professur għadu marid, bħall-ambjent. Nawguralu fejqan ta’ malajr. Mhux biss lill-Professur, immafuq kollox anke lill-ambjent.

Townsquare high-rise: an internal development

 

The public hearing by the Planning Authority prior to a decision regarding the issuing of the development permit for the Townsquare high-rise project was held on Thursday. The discussion was essentially channelled towards applying existing planning policy and explaining the conclusions of studies mostly carried out some eight years ago. However, as I submitted during this hearing, the proposal for the Townsquare high-rise project infringes existing planning policy.

It is known that the Floor Area Ratio Policy establishes that for a site to be considered for the development of tall buildings it needs to be surrounded by streets on four sides. In fact the expression “completely detached urban block” is used (paragraph 5.3) in the document  entitled A Planning Policy Guide on the Use and the Applicability of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

It is clear that, when drawing up the Development Permit Application Report, the Planning Authority case officer adopted a very wide interpretation of the term “road” without realising that the context required a strict literal interpretation.  A  member of the Planning Authority even considered it appropriate to reply to my submissions by reading out to me the definition of the term “road” as contained in section 2 of the 2016 Development Planning Act.  I was informed – in open session – by this over-enthusiastic member of the Planning Authority that the term “road” means “any road, whether public or private, and includes any street, square, court, alley, lane, bridge, footway, passage or quay, whether thoroughfare or not”.

This bright spark is probably unaware that this definition is preceded by the words “unless the context otherwise requires”. This necessarily leads to the consideration as to what is meant by a  “detached urban block” and,  in particular, whether the creation of footpaths large or small on the Townsquare site itself serves to create such “a detached urban block”.

Various doubts were expressed at the voting stage by 6 out of the 13 members of the Planning Authority present for Thursday’s sitting, leading them to vote against the approval of the development of the Townsquare project, even though the Executive Chairman considered that he had to declare in open session that the proposal (in his opinion) did not in any way infringe the Floor Area Ratio policy. Unfortunately, however, no substantial discussion took place on whether the requirement of having “a detached urban block” as the site for the proposed high-rise was being observed.

The open space around the Townsquare high-rise is a result of the 50 per cent maximum site coverage determined by the Floor Area Ratio Policy. It is an integral part of the project and consequently does not serve to detach the project from the surrounding urban blocks. In fact, this open space borders the backyards of the bordering residential properties on all sides.

The proposed development at Townsquare can be said to have an elevation on only one street, Qui- Si-Sana Seafront, due to the development of the first part of the Townsquare project some years ago. It is shielded by other third party buildings on Hughes Hallet Street, Tignè Street and Tower Road.

Access to the proposed development will be through Qui-Si-Sana Lane, Tignè Street (next to the Union Club) and a small opening between third party property onto Hughes Hallet Street in addition to the reserved point of access on Qui-Si-Sana Seafront. There is no way that this can be construed as being “a detached urban block” but rather as an internal development primarily contained by third party development.

This is just one of many reasons on the basis of which the request of a development permit for the Townsquare high-rise should have been refused by the Planning Authority. Together with various other reasons, this can be a suitable basis for contesting the decision through the submission of an appeal to overturn it.

Tall Buildings : the advice ignored by the Maltese authorities

 

“Tall buildings cannot be avoided in our times. The choice we have is whether to control them or else whether to put up with their future growth.” These were the concluding comments of a report drawn up by Professor Mir Ali from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USA after a visit to Malta in 2008 during which he met with and advised MEPA on the future of tall buildings in Malta.The report is entitled Urban Design Strategy Report on Tall Buildings in Malta.

Professor Ali’s report contains recommendations most of which are as relevant today as when they were originally drafted. Central to these recommendations, way back in 2008, was the need to draw a master plan addressing tall buildings and their impacts. “Lack of a master plan,”  Professor Ali stated, “results in uncontrolled developments and unpredictable impacts on urban life.”  The developed master plan,  Prof. Ali emphasised, should be “for Malta as a whole and for the selected sites for tall buildings, individually.”  Drawing up such a master plan with a reasonable level of detail will take time to carry out, a considerable portion of which should be utilised in consultation, primarily with the residents to be impacted. Certainly much more time would be required than the November 2016 target indicated by the government earlier this week.  A moratorium on the issuing of any development permit for high-rises until such time that a master plan has been discussed and approved would be a very reasonable course of action.

Professor Ali considered six sites, which were indicated to him by MEPA, as having the potential of hosting high-rise development. He proposed the following rank order : Qawra, Gżira, Tignè, Paceville, Pembroke and Marsa.  Such a ranking order by Prof. Ali is qualified by an emphasis on the substantial infusion of public monies which is required. Prof. Ali commented that if the number of sites are reduced to less than six it would be much better for Malta.

Professor Ali made a number of incisive remarks.

There is a need for an objective market and feasibility study for each project, which study should include the life cycle cost of the project. In view of the high vacancy rate of existing residential units, Prof. Ali queried the kind of occupancy expected of high-rises. Failure of high-rises will impact the economy of the whole of Malta which has no safety valve because of its size and lack of adequate elasticity, he stressed.

An efficient public transport is a fundamental requirement for the Maltese islands irrespective of whether high-rises are developed or not. But for the success of tall buildings “an integrated sustainable public transport system” is absolutely necessary. Yet, surprise, surprise, Professor Ali observed that “there is no efficient public transport system that is efficient and that covers the whole of Malta”

Sounds like familiar territory!

Infrastructural deficiencies must be addressed. If the existing infrastructure is inadequate or in a state of disrepair it must be upgraded and expanded to meet future needs. Tignè residents in Sliema have much to say about the matter, not just with reference to the state of the roads in the area but more on the present state of the public sewers! Residents of the Tignè peninsula are not the only ones who urgently require an upgrade of their infrastructural services. Residents in many other localities have similar requirements.

Social and environmental impacts of tall buildings must be considered thoroughly at the design stage. However Maltese authorities have developed the habit of ignoring the social impacts of development projects. In addition, it is very worrying that, as reported in the press earlier during this week,  Prime Minister Joseph Muscat does not seem to be losing any sleep over the matter.

People living in a low-rise environment consider high-rises as intrusive. Unless public participation is factored in at a very early stage through planned beneficial impacts on the community in terms of economic benefits, upgrade of services and the general benefits of the redevelopment of the surroundings, such projects do not have a future.

The upkeep of high-rises is quite a challenge which requires skills that are different from low-rise buildings. Notwithstanding changes to the relevant provisions of the law, there already exist serious difficulties in bringing together owners of low-rise multi-owned properties in order that they can ensure that maintenance of such properties is addressed. The challenge of high-rises is exponentially more complex.

The above is a snap-shot of Prof. Ali’s report. From what I’ve heard from a number  of people who met Professor Ali, he was more vociferous in his verbal utterances. Unfortunately,  his advice has been largely ignored.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 26 June 2016