Kemm ħasbuna ċwieċ ?

L-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Verifika għadu kif ikkonkluda investigazzjoni dwar iċ-Ċentru Interpretattiv f’Ħad-Dingli. L-investigazzjoni fittxet li tiddetermina jekk kienx hemm xi ftehim wara l-kwinti bejn uffiċjali pubbliċi diversi biex is-sit f’Ħad-Dingli jkun ittrasformat minn ċentru interpretattiv għal stabiliment tal-ikel.

L-investigazzjoni, kif spjegat f’rapport bl-Ingliż li ippubblika l-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Verifika ma sab l-ebda prova li tista’ tissostanzja allegazzjonijiet dwar frodi jew korruzzjoni. Hemm imma referenza għal dak li qed jissejjaħ “oversight”, jiġifieri żball. Ċentrali fl-iżvilupp ta’ dan l-iżball insibu l-awtoritá li tieħu ħsieb l-ippjanar dwar l-użu tal-art. Dakinnhar MEPA, illum PA.

Meta l-Kunsill Lokali ta’ Ħad-Dingli issottometta l-applikazzjoni bażika (dik li nirreferu għaliha bħala outline development permission) (applikazzjoni PA5314/02) il-kunsill kien qed jitlob li jingħata permess għal żona fejn iservu l-ikel (id-dokumenti jirreferu għal catering area). Ir-rapport tal-Uffiċċju tal-Verifika jagħmel referenza għal dokumenti tal-MEPA biex juri li l-Kunsill Lokali ta’ Ħad-Dingli kien qed jintalab jirrevedi l-proposta tiegħu, u b’mod partikolari biex ineħħi mill-pjanti kull referenza għal żona fejn iservu l-ikel. Dan it-tibdil, jemfasizza ir-rapport “included the elimination of catering services”. Biex l-affarijiet ikunu ċari ħafna, l-MEPA insistiet biex tkun emendata ukoll il-proposta ta’ żvilupp innifisha.

Il-proposta oriġinali ta’ żvilupp li ippreżenta l-Kunsill Lokali kienet dwar twaqqiegħ ta’ żewġ binjiet eżistenti u l-bini minflok ta’ binja ta’ tlett sulari b’diżinn modern b’qies ikbar minn dak tal-bini eżistenti. Il-pjanti jipprovdu għal kċina żgħira u żona mdaqqsa fejn joqgħodu bil-qegħda n-nies.

Il-MEPA insistiet, u l-Kunsill Lokali ta’ Ħad-Dingli aċċetta, li l-proposta ta’ żvilupp kellha tkun emendat biex tikkonċerna r-restawr tal-binjiet eżistenti flmkien ma alterazzjonijiet u żidiet għalihom biex ikunu mibdula f’ċentru interpretattiv. Il-bejgħ ta’ ikel u xorb fuq is-sit kellu jkun limitat għal dak li seta jsir bil-magni (vending machines).

Iktar tard il-Kunsill Lokali ta’ Ħad-Dingli ippreżenta applikazzjoni dettaljata (full development permission) li kienet approvata mill-MEPA. Din l-applikazzjoni approvata (PA0425/08), jgħidilna r-rapport tal-Uffiċċju tal-Verifika, “ippermetta li ikel u xorb setgħu jinxtraw miċ-ċentru interpretattiv bħala attivitá anċillari (allowed food and drink to be served at the Interpretation Centre as an ancillary activity). Dan minkejja li dan kollu kien ipprojibit mill-permess bażiku li kien approvat iktar qabel, meta kienu ġew stabiliti l-parametri bażiċi tal-proġett.

Ir-rapport tal-Uffiċċju tal-Verifika jgħidilna li meta l-investigaturi għarblu liċ-Ċhairperson tal-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp fuq il-każ, din qaltilhom li d-diskrepanza kienet żball u li hi kellha l-impressjoni li l-permess approvat kien jirrifletti d-diskussjoni li saret fil-bord u allura kien jipprojibixxi li jkun possibli li sservi l-ikel fis-sit (this variance as an oversight, and that she was under the impression that the permit issued reflected the Board’s discussion, and therefore excluded catering on site).

Il-kelma li tintuża hi “oversight”, liema kelma tfisser “żball li jsir bi żvista għax tkun qabżitlek xi ħaġa”.

Meta fittixt fid-dokumentazzjoni tal-MEPA sibt li mill-minuti tal-laqgħat tal-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp ma tantx jidher li qabeż xejn biex sar dan “l-iżball”. Fil-fatt il-minuti tat-18 ta’ Marzu 2009 speċifikament jgħidu li l-Kummissjoni kellha l-intenzjoni li tirrifjuta l-applikazzjoni minħabba li dak propost dwar il-“catering facilities” (jiġifieri l-użu magħruf bħala Class 6 use) ma kienux approvati fl-ewwel permess.

Fid-dokument tal-MEPA li nirreferu għalih bħala DPAR (Development Permit Application report) fit-taqsima tiegħu intitolata “Notes to Committee” hemm miktub li l-perit tal-Kunsill Lokali rinfaċċjat b’dan ippreżenta pjanti mibdula li fihom il-faċilitajiet għall-catering tneħħew.

F’laqgħat li saru iktar tard mill-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp, din l-intenzjoni tal-Kummissjoni inbidlet u l-applikazzjoni bil-faċilitajiet tal-catering b’kollox kienet approvata nhar l-20 ta’ Jannar 2010.

Dan tista’ issejjaħlu kollox minbarra “żball”. Kienu jafu x’inhuma jagħmlu.

Ir-rapport tal-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Verifika jgħidilna li “Din l-investigazzjoni tinnota li bejn it-18 ta’ Marzu 2009 u l- 10 ta’ Marzu 2010, il-MEPA bidlet il-posizzjoni tagħha minn waħda li teskludi l-faċilitajiet li jipprovdu għat-tisjir tal-ikel (Class 6 facilities) għal waħda li tippermettihom bħala faċilitá anċillari.” Flok mill-bieb daħlu mit-tieqa.

Il-mistoqsija bażika hi waħda sempliċi ħafna: x’ġara bejn it-18 ta’ Marzu 2009 u l-10 ta’ Marzu 2010 biex wassal lill-Kummissjoni biex tibdel il-fehma tagħha?

Din il-mistoqsija tibqa’ bla tweġiba wara li nkunu qrajna r-rapport tal-Uffiċċju Nazzjonali tal-Verifika.

Huma biss iċ-ċwieċ li jistgħu jaċċettaw l-ispjegazzjoni li dan kien żball!

 

Ippubblikat f’Illum : Il-Ħadd 17 ta’ Ġunju 2018

The Dingli “oversight”

The National Audit Office (NAO) has just concluded an investigation into the Dingli Interpretation centre which sought to determine if there had been collusion between various government officials so that the site will be transformed from an interpretation centre into a catering establishment.

The investigation, as explained in the NAO’s report, did not uncover any evidence to suggest fraud and/or corruption. There is, however, reference to what is being described as an “oversight”. Of central importance in the development of this “oversight” was the authority dealing with land-use planning – then known as MEPA, today rebranded as PA!

When an application for an outline development permission was submitted by the Dingli Local Council in 2002 (application PA5314/02) the local council was requesting the incorporation of a catering area in the submitted plans. Drawing on planning documentation, the NAO report explains in detail how Dingli Local Council was requested by MEPA to revise the submitted proposal. These changes, the NAO report emphasised, “included the elimination of catering services”. To be very clear, MEPA insisted on a change to the development proposal itself.

The original development proposal submitted by the Local Council consisted of the demolition of the two existing buildings and the construction of a new building, consisting of three floors, of a modern design, which occupied a larger footprint than the existing structures. The plans included a kitchenette and a large area designated for seating.

MEPA insisted – and Dingli Local Council agreed – that the description of the proposed development be amended to read ‘restore existing structures, carry out alterations and additions to convert them to an interpretive centre’. The sale of food and drink on site was to be limited to the use of vending machines.

Subsequently, an application for full development permission was submitted by Dingli Local Council and approved by MEPA. We are informed by the NAO report that the approved application (PA0425/08), “allowed food and drink to be served at the Interpretation Centre as an ancillary activity” notwithstanding the fact that these were prohibited by the previous approved outline development permit which established the basic acceptable parameters of the project.

The NAO report states that when the Chairperson of the Development Control Commission (DCC) was queried on the matter, she explained this variance as an “oversight” and said that she was under the impression that the permit issued reflected the Board’s discussion, and therefore excluded catering on site.”

Now an “oversight”, according to my dictionary is “a mistake made through a failure to notice something”.

Going through the MEPA documentation available, I came across the minutes of the DCC which do not indicate an oversight. In fact, the minutes of the DCC held on 18 March 2009 specifically state that there was the intention to refuse the application specifically because catering facilities (that is Class 6 use) were not approved in the outline development permission.

In the MEPA documentation which is referred to as DPAR (Development Permit Application report) in the section entitled “Notes to Committee”, it is written that the Local Council architect reacted by submitting a revised set of drawings in which the catering facility was removed.

In later meetings of the DCC, this intention disappeared and the application (including the catering facilities) was approved on 20 January 2010.

This is anything but an “oversight”: they knew all along what was going on.

The NAO report states: “This Investigation notes that between 18 March 2009 and 10 March 2010, MEPA’s position changed from excluding Class 6 facilities to one that allowed catering as an ancillary facility.”

The basic question is: what happened between the 18 March 2009 and 10 March 2010, as a result of which the DCC changed its views? It is a question which the NAO report fails to answer.

Only idiots would accept that this is an “oversight”.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 16 June 2018

Victor Axiaq : meta ser jirreżenja?

L-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi immexija minn Victor Axiaq s’issa qegħda hemm għal xejn. Suppost li l-Ippjanar infired mill-Ambjent biex flok MEPA għandna żewġ awtoritajiet prinċipalment biex l-ambjent ikun iktar b’saħħtu.

Imma, sfortunatament qatt daqs illum ma kien daqshekk dgħajjef l-amministrazzjoni tal-ambjent f’pajjiżna. Meta hu magħruf li fil-memo mibgħuta mill-Professur Victor Axiaq lil Dr Timothy Gambin l-EIA dwar Townsquare f’Tas-Sliema kien deskritt bħala farsa (a sham) bil-fors tistaqsi għalfejn s’issa l-Awtorità tal-Ambjent għadha ma għamlet xejn.

L-anqas ma kellha toqgħod tistenna sa wara li tittieħed id-deċiżjoni biex l-Awtorità tal-Ambjent tiċaqlaq. Għax jekk kienet taf li l-EIA kien farsa kellha l-obbligu li tiċċaqlaq ħafna qabel. L-anqas biss indenja ruħu jinkariga uffiċjali tal-awtorità li jmexxi biex jippreżentaw il-kaz ambjentali kontra it-torri ta’ Gasan (Townsquare) f’tas-Sliema. Għax dawn l-uffiċjali, nhar l-4 t’Awwissu 2016 kienu preżenti għas-seduta pubblika tal- Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, imma kollha baqgħu b’ħalqhom magħluq. Dan minkejja l-memo li ħejja Victor Axiaq u li inżammet mistura minn Dr.Timothy Gambin.

Kif qalu l-attivisti ambjentali li iddimostraw quddiem l-uffiċini tal-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u Riżorsi dalgħodu :  l-Awtorità hi baħħ. S’issa jidher li biha u mingħajrha xorta. Ma nafx x’inhu jistenna l-Professur Victor Axiaq biex jirreżenja.

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.

Wara t-tejatrin ta’ Singapore …………….. lil hinn mill-partiġjaniżmu politiku

 

Qed joqrob il-jum li fih it-tanker għall-ħażna tal-gass tal-power station jidħol u jitqiegħed fil-Port ta’ Marsaxlokk. Qed jgħidulna li dan ser ikun temporanju, jiġifieri għal ftit taż-żmien, sakemm jitlestew l-istudji dwar il-pipline tal-gass bejn Sqallija u Malta. Ovvjament trid iżżid ukoll iż-żmien biex il-pipeline jitqieghed f’qiegħ il-baħar inkluż ukoll il-perjodu tal-finanzjament, tendering u commissioning. Mhux xahar u tnejn.

Kemm ser ikun twil dan il-perjodu temporanju? Jiddependi mix-xogħol li sar diġà. Peró ma neħodiex bi kbira jekk dan iż-żmien ikun bejn 5 u 8 snin.

Sadanittant hemm il-ħtieġa li jkun ikkunsidrat il-permess operattiv tal-power station taħdem bil-gass f’Delimara. Dan il-permess ikun irid jissodisfa tlett tipi ta’ direttivi/regolamenti. Dawk dwar l-impjanti industrijali, dawk dwar l-impatti ambjentali (IPPC – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) u dawk dwar il-ħarsien minn inċidenti industrijali u l-impatti kemm ambjentali kif ukoll dawk ta’ protezzjoni ċivili (Direttivi ta’ Seveso).

Dan kollu jkun ikkunsidrat mill-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u Riżorsi flimkien ma’ awtoritajiet oħra, prinċipalment id-Dipartiment tal-Protezzjoni Ċivili u l-Awtorità għall-Ħarsien tas-Saħħa fuq il-Post tax-Xogħol. Imma ser ikun hemm ukoll bla dubju ħtieġa  ta’ eżami sewwa ta’ issues ta’ navigazzjoni minn Trasport Malta minħabba kemm it-tanker stazzjonarju (marbut mal-moll) fil-bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk kif ukoll minħabba li madwar 8 darbiet fis-sena ser jidħlu tankers bil-ħtiġijiet tal-gass skond kemm tkun qed tikkonsma gass il-Power Station ta’ Delimara.

Dawn huma kollha affarijiet li ġew diskussi f’ċerta dettall madwar sentejn ilu meta kien qed ikun diskuss il-permess ta’ żvilupp quddiem il-MEPA. Dakinnhar kien intqal li dawn kollha kienu affarijiet li riedu jkunu deċiżi iktar tard. Preċiżament issa hu dak il-mument, matul dawn il-ġimgħat u xhur li ġejjin.

Ser naraw matul il-ġimgħat li ġejjin dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ sigurtà huwa u jkun trasferit il-gass mit-tankers ġejjin u sejrin għal ġot-tanker stazzjonarju. Jekk hux veru li għal ċertu ħin il-port ikun jeħtieġlu illi jkun magħluq u kif dan (jekk minnu) ser jeffettwa l-operat tal Freeport u tas-sajjieda.

Irridu naraw kemm il-miżuri ta’ sigurtà fl-operazzjoni tal-power station huma f’posthom u xi drills ser ikunu meħtieġa (inkluż il-frekwenza tagħhom) biex ikun assigurat illi l-popolazzjoni residenzjali fil-viċinanzi tkun imħejjija għal kull eventwalità, anke jekk remota.

Wara l-inċidenti ta’ tmiem il-ġimgħa fil-ħruq tan-nar tal-festa ta’ Marsaxlokk bla dubju jridu jittieħdu prewkazzjonijiet ħafna iktar biex ikun assigurat li dawn it-tip ta’ inċidenti, jekk iseħħu, jinżammu l-bogħod kemm jista’ jkun mill-power station ta’ Delimara u l-ħażna tal-gass.

Dan kollu dwaru hemm l-obbligu li jkun hemm konsultazzjoni pubblika mar-residenti effettwati, dawk ta’ Marsaxlokk prinċipalment, imma probabbilment ukoll dawk ta’ Birżebbuġa.

L-operazzjoni tal-power station bil-gass bla dubju ser tnaqqas it-tniġġż tal-arja u b’mod ġenerali ittejjeb l-impatti ambjentali. Il-kostruzzjoni tal-pipe tal-gass eventwalment tnaqqas u tbiegħed il-perikli. Imma sa ma jasal dak il-jum, il-possibiltà tal-perikli, anke jekk remoti xorta qegħda wara l-bieb tagħna.

Lil hinn mill-partiġġjaniżmu politiku għandna l-obbligu li nassiguraw li l-affarijiet isiru sewwa. Biex dan isir għandna l-obbligu li neżaminaw kull pass li jsir. Għax b’hekk biss kulħadd joqgħod attent li jagħmel xogħolu sewwa.

ippubblikat fuq iNews : it-Tlieta 2 t’Awwissu 2016

Political calculation or environmental principle?

 

Joseph Muscat’s declaration that the Freeport Terminal will not be permitted to expand in Birżebbuġa’s direction due to its impacts on the residential community will inevitably have an effect on the Planning Authority. Viewed in the context of the recent Planning Authority decision not to approve the proposed Ħondoq ir-Rummien development, a pattern seems to be developing.

Given the fact that these two decisions are closely associated with localities that politically support the Labour Party it is still not clear whether this newly discovered sensitivity to restrict development which negatively impacts residential communities is based on political calculation or on environmental principle. This consideration is inevitable, in particular due to the report in this newspaper on 22 June that the Prime Minister had stated, in a discussion with environmental NGO Flimkien għall-Ambjent Aħjar, that he does not care about impact assessments, as residents get used to everything. As far as I am aware, the Office of the Prime Minister never corrected this report.

The Freeport Terminal debate clearly indicates that Birżebbuġa residents are determined to deliver a different message: they have had enough. During the last seven years there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between Birżebbuġa Local Council, MEPA and the Freeport Terminal Management. This has led to a number of improvements, the most important of which was the setting up of a tripartite Environmental Monitoring Committee that has served to build some bridges and to explore solutions to existing problems caused by the operation of the Freeport Terminal.

There was a time, around two years ago, when pressure was put on Birżebbuġa Local Council to drop its objections to specific operations. I distinctly remember representatives from the oil-rig repair industry  trying to convince the Council of the “benefits” that an oil-rig industry based at the Freeport Terminal could generate.

When these representatives realised that no one was convinced, an amendment to the environmental permit was forced through the then MEPA Board. To their credit, only three of the then board members understood the real issues and voted against the proposal: the two MPs (Joe Sammut and Ryan Callus) and the environmental NGO representative Alex Vella of the Ramblers Association.

The amended environmental permit would have permitted minor repairs to ships and oil-rigs berthed at the Freeport Terminal. However, after the MEPA Board meeting all hell broke loose, leading Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to disassociate himself from its decision and publicly align himself with the minority on the board opposing the changes. He then stated that he was in agreement with “his representative”, Labour MP Joe Sammut.

While the Freeport Terminal, faced with the reaction of residents, eventually relinquished the newly-acquired permit, the internal debate within the Labour Party continued, leading to the recent statement by Joseph Muscat that he is not in agreement with an expansion of the Freeport Terminal operations that would have a negative impact on the Birżebbuġa community.

Irrespective of whether it is a matter of principle or a political calculation which has led the Prime Minister to make such a statement, I submit that this is still a significant turning point that has been achieved as a direct result of Birżebbuġa Local Council’s persistent lobbying. It contrasts with the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who looks forward to an increase in the operations of the Freeport Terminal, without batting an eyelid over the resulting, continuously increasing, impact on the residential community.

The Prime Minister’s statement, while being a positive first step, is certainly not enough. It needs to be translated into policy as an integral part of the revised Local Plans currently under consideration. It is also important that the Prime Minister’s newly identified sensitivities are exported to other areas in Malta and Gozo. It is essential that, in a small country such as ours, third party rights opposing “development” are reinforced.

The issue at stake is far larger than Birżebbbuġa or the Freeport Terminal. It is a tug-of-war between those supporting “development” at all costs and our residential communities. The government must, through planning policy, be supportive of all our residential communities without exception.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 31st July 2016

Il-Freeport : il-ħmar iwaħħal f’denbu!

Matul dawn il-ġranet kienu ppubblikati diversi artikli b’kummenti dwar id-deċiżjoni li ħa l-Gvern u kkomunikata mill-Prim Ministru li mhux għaqli li l-Port Ħieles jitħalla jikber fid-direzzjoni ta’ Birżebbuġa minħabba l-impatti fuq ir-residenti.

Id-deċiżjoni hi waħda tajba imma ………………. tfisser li l-awtoritajiet li wassluna sa dan il-punt m’għamlux xogħolhom sewwa. B’mod partikolari l-MEPA li repetutament ħadet deċiżjonijiet mingħajr ma qieset sewwa l-impatti fuq in-nies, residenti f’Birżebbuġa.

Sentejn ilu, f’April 2014, il-MEPA kienet anke ddeċidiet li tagħti permess biex isiru xogħolijiet ta’ tiswija żgħira ta’ vapuri u oilrigs fil-Port Ħieles. Deċiżjoni li kienet wasslet għal dikjarazzjoni pubblika kuntrarja minn Joseph Muscat.

Quddiem dan kollu hemm mistoqsija waħda: kemm ser idumu jinħatru dawn it-tip ta’ nies fit-tmexxija tal-awtoritajiet jekk m’humiex kapaċi jmexxu? Għax dawk magħżul sal-lum ftit li xejn għandhom sensittività dwar kif dak li huma ser jiddeċiedu dwaru jeffettwa lir-residenti.

Dawn min jagħżilhom? Mhux kollha bil-barka tal-Prim Ministru jintagħżlu? Hemm xi cans li jintagħżlu persuni aħjar? Forsi ma nibqgħux bil-ħmar iwaħħal f’denbu!

 

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

L-ODZ w it-tidwir mal-lewża

 

Il-proposta tal-PN biex deciżjonijiet dwar l-ODZ jibdew jittieħdu mill-Parlament b’maġġorana ta’ żewġ terzi hi politika ta’ min qata’ qalbu li jista’ jindirizza l-kawza tal-problema u minflok jinfex fl-effett. Hija ukoll dikjarazzjoni li din is-sitwazzjoni mistennija li tkun fit-tul jew permanenti.

Kif diġa kelli l-opportunità li nikteb, id-diżastru akkumulat fl-ODZ hu riżultat ta’ falliment tal-istituzzjonijiet li la l-bieraħ u l-anqas illum ma jispiraw fiduċja. Ir-rapport li kien tħejja mill-MEPA dwar iż-Żonqor u l-posizzjoni li ħadet il-MEPA dwar per eżempju l-pompa tal-petrol li kienet proposta għall-Magħtab huma tnejn mid-diversi eżempji dwar dan.

L-awtoritajiet għandhom l-inkarigu li jipproteġu dak li hu għażiż għalina. F’dan l-inkarigu, b’mod ġenerali fallew. M’għandhomx joqgħodu jistennew liċ-ċittadini individwali jew lill-għaqdiet ambjentali biex jirrealizzaw il-gravità tas-sitwazzjoni.

Il-proposta tal-PN hi politika ta’ min qata’ qalbu għax flok ma tindirizza l-problema tfittex illi toħloq mekkaniżmu li jimblokka d-deċiżjonijiet temporanjament. Għax dik hi r-relevanza tal-mekkaniżmu tal-vot ta’ żewġ terzi fil-Parlament li ultimament jikkonverti ruħu għal deċiżjoni b’maġġoranza sempliċi kif stqarr il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni fl-artiklu tiegħu llum. Issa din it-tip ta’ proposta tista’ tagħmel sens biss jekk tkun għal perjodu qasir ta’ żmien u dan sakemm jitnaddfu l-awtoritajiet u jinħolqu l-mekkaniżmi biex dawn jaħdmu sewwa bla tfixkil jew indħil mill-politika partiġjana.

Dan hu ir-rwol tal-Parlament: li jfittex l-aħjar mod kif ikun amministrat il-ġid komuni u li fejn ikun hemm problema dwar dan jidentifika soluzzjonijiet li jindirizzaw l-issues mingħajr tidwir mal-lewża.

Sfortunatament il-Parlament Malti, tul is-snin wera li hu bla snien fit-twettiq ta’ waħda mill-iktar funzjonijiet importanti tiegħu, dik li jgħarbel il-ħidma tal-Gvern. Din la saret u l-anqas qegħda ssir. Mhux ma issirx sewwa, imma sempliċiment ma issirx għax numru mhux żgħir ta’ Membri Parlamentari għadhom ma fehmux li din hi responsabbiltà tagħhom. Kieku dan fehmuh, dawk il-Membri Parlamentari li aċċettaw ħatriet fuq bordijiet u awtoritajiet ma kienux jagħmlu dan. Għax meta aċċettaw dawn il-ħatriet huma kkompromettew il-ħidma tagħhom bħala Membri Parlamentari għax poġġew lilhom infushom fis-sitwazzjoni ta’ kunflitt ta’ interess kontinwu u dan minħabba li issa suppost li jridu jissorveljaw il-ħidma tagħhom stess.

Din hi is-sitwazzjoni. Bla tidwir mal-lewża l-qagħda tal-ODZ f’Malta u Għawdex hi rifless tal-qagħda ġenerali tal-governanza fil-pajjiż.

______________

fuq dan il-blog, dwar l-istess suġġett ara ukoll :

Froġa oħra ta’ Simon Busuttil.

L-ODZ u l-Parlament.

Moratorium : fl-interess tagħna lkoll

Huwa meħtieġ li jkun hawn moratorium fuq l-iżvilupp ta’ proġetti kbar. Li dan isir, illum qabel għada, hu fl-interess tagħna lkoll.

Meta fl-2006 ġew approvati bl-għaġġla l-pjani lokali ittieħdet deċiżjoni ħażina li għadna nbatu l-konsegwenzi tagħha sal-lum.

Sa nofs l-2006 il-proċess tal-konsiderazzjoni tal-pjani lokali kien miexi bil-mod tant li tnejn biss (minn 7) kienu għadhom ġew approvati. Imma indunaw li kienet ser tidħol fis-seħħ direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewropea imsejħa Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Din id-direttiva tesiġi li qabel ma jkun approvat pjan jew programm li jħejji l-qafas ta’ żvilupp għall-futur għandu jkun studjat l-impatt kumulattiv ta’ dak propost.

Studju tal-impatt kumulattiv tal-pjani lokali ma sarx. Li kieku dan l-istudju sar il-pjani lokali kienu jkunu ezaminati dettaljatment. Ir-regolamenti dwar is-suġġett fil-fatt jgħidu li l-iskop hu  li “jipprovdi għal livell għoli ta’ ħarsien tal-ambjent, u li jikkontribwixxi għall-integrazzjoni ta’ konsiderazzjonijiet ambjentali fil-preparazzjoni u l-adozzjoni ta’ pjanijiet u programmi bil-għan li jiġi promoss l-iżvilupp sostenibbli, billi jiġi żgurat li, skont dawn ir-regolamenti, titwettaq stima ambjentali strateġika dwar ċertu pjanijiet u programmi li x’aktarx ikollhom effetti sinifikanti fuq l-ambjent.” [ara Regolamenti dwar Stima Ambjentali Strateġika. 549.61] L-iskedi ta’ dawn ir-regolamenti jispjegaw dettaljatament dwar il-kriterji u l-impatti li għandhom ikunu ikkunsidrati.

Biex dan l-istudju ma jsirx il-Gvern u l-MEPA għaġġlu biex fis-sajf tal-2006 jkunu approvati l-pjani lokali li kien baqa’ flimkien mal-eserċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni li żied maż-żewġ miljun metru kwadru fiż-żona tal-iżvilupp. B’din l-approvazzjoni ta’ malajr il-Gvern u l-MEPA fl-2006 għamlu għażla ċara li għalihom l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni tiġi qabel il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll.

Għalhekk hemm bżonn il-moratorium, il-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħna lkoll tkun tista’ terġa’ tingħata prijorità.