Mepa falling short of environmental vision (2)

As a Sliema resident I welcome the news that the EU Commission has initiated legal procedures against the Maltese authorities over the waiver of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Fort Cambridge project in Sliema. It must be said, however, that the EIA ought to go beyond the high-rise building impact issue.

It is well known that Sliema has been declared overdeveloped since the early 1990s. Moreover, neither Mepa nor ADT deny that further development in Sliema will generate more traffic, which will lead to further deterioration of the already precarious traffic situation in the town. It is argued that the progressive increase in traffic will result in an increase in air and sound pollution, which will adversely effect the health and quality of life not only of residents living in the immediate vicinity of such developments, but also of other Sliema residents, particularly those living along the main traffic arteries of Sliema.

As far as I am aware even the Traffic Impact Statement submitted with the Fort Cambridge project, for instance, focuses mainly on the Tigné peninsula and its immediate surroundings and does not include the already stretched Sliema main traffic arteries in its considerations.

I expressed my concerns regarding the Sliema traffic problems, which are going to deteriorate with further development, with Mepa, ADT and the Sliema local council, also expressing my view that, prior to issuing building permits Mepa should first ensure that any such development does not adversely affect the health and/or the quality of life of all incumbent Sliema residents.

However, from Mepa's reply to my concerns, I gathered that Mepa considers development as producing advantages and disadvantages, similar according to Mepa, to the provision of electricity with inherent risks, and which at best may be addressed with damage control measures.

Taking note of what has happened and what is being proposed and projected in Sliema and other localities, it is not difficult to conclude that the advantages referred to by Mepa tend to favour the developers and their privileged clients, and that conversely, the disadvantages and risks are imposed on us, lesser mortals living and/or working in the vicinity of the development and at times beyond.

I reiterate that, in the absence of a solution readily available or within reach regarding the traffic and pollution problems in Sliema, Mepa, as the environmental and planning authority, bears the responsibility to ensure that any development it authorises does not lead to a deterioration of the environment, which will adversely affect peoples' health and quality of life.

This, prior to any other consideration including the millions Malta liri price tag paid by the developers and cashed by the government, the investors who invested millions in related bond issues, and/or the projected property sold/bought on plan.

Regrettably, with the waiver of the EIA for Sliema, it seems to me that the environment, the well-being and the legitimate interest of the Sliema residents have been given away to the highest bidder.