No guarantees
In her piece entitled Let The Dust Settle (July 21), Tina Agius of St Julians describes the ordeal of living in close proximity to the Pender Gardens development. She claims she has to endure the daily deposition of "a huge quantity of dust on (her)...
In her piece entitled Let The Dust Settle (July 21), Tina Agius of St Julians describes the ordeal of living in close proximity to the Pender Gardens development. She claims she has to endure the daily deposition of "a huge quantity of dust on (her) home and gardens", apart from "enormous noise pollution".
I would like to use Ms Agius's experience to highlight two points.
Firstly, I am aware that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was carried out for the Pender Gardens development - which presumably assessed the dust and noise impact of this development on the environs. The EIA would also have recommended mitigation measures to eliminate/reduce such impacts and would also have contained a construction management plan and a monitoring programme during the development phase.
Mepa would have approved this development on the condition that such mitigation measures and monitoring of impacts are carried out to Mepa's satisfaction.
In all probability, the developers would have been asked to make a bank guarantee, which would be forfeited by Mepa should they be found in breach of the conditions set.
One has to ask: Were these (dust and noise) impacts predicted in the EIA? Assuming they were, what mitigation measures were proposed? Are the mitigation measures inadequate? Is a monitoring programme in place? And, if so, is the monitoring programme confirming Ms Agius's claims? Is Mepa monitoring the development? Will the development be stopped if found in breach of the permit's conditions? Will the bank guarantee be forfeited?
Secondly, if Mepa identified the need for an EIA for Pender Place, why has it waived the need for an EIA for the equally massive Fort Cambridge development in the midst of Sliema? In the face of clear evidence that self-regulation, social responsibility, and the forfeiting of bank guarantees do not work, and that Mepa's enforcement of permit conditions leaves a lot to be desired, how can Mepa convince us that the negative impacts of the Fort Cambridge development will be "insignificant"?
Conclusion: Mepa clearly adopts a system of two weights and two measures. Moreover, even if NGOs/residents/local councils and the EU Commission insist on an EIA for the Fort Cambridge development and succeed, there is no guarantee that the residents' rights for a decent quality of life will be secured. Clearly, something is very amiss in the banana republic of Mepa.