Selling off the citizen

Hearing NGO activists complain about over-development is one thing but having a leading businessman (Tony Zammit Cutajar, June 26) say "Enough is enough" makes one sit up and take notice.

Amazingly, however, Mepa is the most critical of projects like Fort Cambridge through its North Harbours Local Plan, which states that Sliema suffers from "high urban densities and the pressure to intensify development in existing built up areas" and that "further development would increase further noise, traffic, overshadowing, the sense of enclosure and degradation of the public realm...

This trend for major retail and employment uses outside existing centres has meant deteriorating environmental quality in the residential areas of Sliema. This increases congestion, pollution and parking problems for residents where non-local uses are located in residential streets".

"The continued speculative demand for dwellings as an investment asset results in the construction of large inappropriately-sized apartment blocks in relation to the scale of the street and the surrounding road infrastructure."

"There is pressure in localities such as Sliema to increase building heights from existing levels. However, many of the coastal belt residential areas are over-developed and, thus, require a restrictive approach to further development."

This is worlds away from what we have been fed by developers and certain Mepa architects who have mislead the public with a debate on whether tall buildings or traditional low, wide-spread buildings are most suited for the site, an argument which would only be valid if housing were in short supply.

The reality is that the area hosts roughly 5,000 of Malta's over 70,000 vacant units. The 2006 PriceWaterhouse report on the construction industry has revealed that, if all the current high-rise buildings are approved, Malta's vacant buildings will exceed 50 per cent of housing stock.

At a recent international conference, I asked Nicky Gavron, London's dynamic deputy mayor in charge of assessing major new projects, what are the basic criteria for granting such permits. Her reply was: "The first aspects are population density, adequate public transport and a strong infrastructure. If any one of those elements are found to be unacceptable we cannot approve a project".

By Mepa's own admission, all those criteria are in a critical state in Sliema, listing inadequate public transport, increasing levels of traffic congestion, general infrastructure of the area under strain and high urban densities as main problems in Sliema, and calling for overall restraint in building heights and protection of local residents from the effects of traffic. Are any of these priorities being heeded in the permits that are being issued?

The Local Plan also emphasises that "skylines should not be significantly disrupted by new development, especially high buildings. Key identified view corridors are Marsamxett Harbour and Valletta (a World Heritage Site)". "Within the identified Strategic View Corridors, Mepa shall safeguard the settings of key landscapes, landmark buildings, Urban Conservation Areas and the Valletta World Heritage Site."

"Mepa will seek to ensure that any building proposal is compatible with the character of strategic and local views in terms of setting, scale and massing... proposed development will not generally be acceptable if it impinges on locally important views or skylines or if it would appear too close or too high in relation to a scheduled building or other landmark building/feature, or behind it so that its silhouette is marred."

"Mepa will refuse development permission for any proposed development that is likely to have a detrimental effect on strategic and local views, scheduled or landmark buildings as viewed in their setting and/or against the skyline."

How can the Prime Minister justify these tall buildings in the light of the above categoric policy refusal?

Furthermore, the FAR (tall buildings) policy is not yet ratified other than as a design guideline and, thus, cannot be used to bypass the Local Plan. Local Plans are ratified by Parliament whereas guidelines are not and, thus, legally, they are hierarchically superior.

Most importantly, the Fort Cambridge site is not sacrosanct private property but public land. The government's failure to use its own regulations to protect its citizens and its misuse of public land to the detriment of citizens would be a scandal of the first order.

It is clear that in the Local Plan, Mepa officials have not minced their words. Residents' rights to decent health and quality of life as well as scheduled skylines cannot be sold off to speculators. When Lawrence Gonzi addressed Tignè residents as outgoing Prime Minister one week before the election, he promised them that their needs would be taken into account and that they would be consulted.

The first real test of Dr Gonzi's sincerity and Austin Walker's integrity is this morning, when the Mepa board will decide whether Sliema residents are once again to be sacrificed to speculation. Sliema hopes its trust has not been misplaced.