Claudia Calleja
Protest against school permit refusal
Students who were meant to be transferred to St Augustine College’s new primary school in Pietà yesterday marched into Valletta in a peaceful protest. Photo: Jason Borg
Mark Zerafa’s eight-year-old son, Luke, was accepted into Year 4 at St Augustine’s College this year but his scholastic future is uncertain after the planning authority refused a permit to build the school.
Luke is one of 150 students who are being temporarily taught at the Archbishop’s Seminary in Tal-Virtù, Rabat until their new school in Pietà is built.
The original plan was to open the new school in the scholastic year starting 2013. However, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority last week refused the application.
“The plan seems to have gone haywire and we are worried about our son’s future,” Mr Zerafa said as he walked from the Floriana War Memorial to the Prime Minister’s office in Valletta yesterday morning. About 300 parents, teachers and students took part in the protest to voice their frustration at the Mepa decision. The protest ended with college rector Fr Alan Scerri presenting a petition addressed to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.
The petition, signed by 600 parents, teachers and former students, asked the Prime Minister to help them find a timely solution.
As the crowd reached the top of the hill, a small boy who was being carried on his father’s shoulders pointed towards Auberge de Castille, where Dr Gonzi has his office, and asked his father: “Is that our new school?”
Claire Mallia said she was worried because she did not know what would happen of her five-year-old son, now in Year 1, if the new school did not materialise.
The boy, Kelvin, has concerns of his own, pointing out that he would be separated from his beloved school friends should he be forced to change school.
Apart from the concerned parents, Fr Scerri said that about 20 teachers, employed this year, were facing uncertainty.
The college had proposal to build four floors and two basement levels, covering an area of 7,700 square metres, on an undeveloped site between the existing secondary school and back gardens in a residential area.
The planning officer on the case said the design and height of the proposed building were unacceptable. He said the project lacked coordination, would constitute overdevelopment of the site and failed to respect the context of the urban conservation area.
Project architect Mannie Galea insisted that the project was in line with all policies as it was in a white area, meaning there were no specific height limitations. The extension was designed to follow the height of the existing building.
Fr Scerri pointed out that the construction of the school, which would have taken about 300 pupils, formed part of the education reform and a €20 million Church expansion project whereby five of its schools would incorporate both education levels.
He said the college had filed the application in 2009 and it had taken over two years for Mepa to come up with a decision. While filing an appeal was one of the options being looked into, this would take too much time. For this reason, Fr Scerri called on the Prime Minister to help find a fast solution to the problem.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
31 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 11th, 12:06
This blog is open to the neighbours of this proposed school extension should they desire to present their views. May be they are ashamed of their NIMBY views and that is why they "have not even arrived in print" except by proxy.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 11th, 10:22
Why don't you all come round to where St Augustine's is situated, in Pieta, and see for yourselves the two 'streets' involved? Why don't you come round and speak to the nieghbours? Eh? I mean: so far, the views of the neighbours have not even arrived in print!
C Muscat
Feb 11th, 17:17
I would like to know where these neighbours have educated their children whether privately at home or in schools practically all within the build up areas. I have 5 large schools around me 2 church schools and 3 government schools...
My children were all educated in schools in residential areas..
Chris Mifsud
Feb 10th, 23:26
I agree with Mepa's case officer. It is a disgrace that schools are being built so close to peoples homes. Nobody wants to be at home and all they can hear is the horrible sound of children screaming and crying. That and all the school transport causing traffic jams.
Schools should be built in areas where nobody lives, where they are not an inconvenience to residents.
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 20:39
@Patrick Pace
If creating an independent board creates havoc, imagine what situations where permits should be granted and they aren’t (like this one) and where ‘permit WAS granted much to the disagreement of all entities involved except MEPA’ are creating! Incidentally MEPA does allow appeals but it takes around 2 years to get the hearing, and one cannot be guaranteed there are no strings attached. An independent board should be set up to assess various abnormal cases (not only this one) and the necessary measures are taken to rectify what is wrong and to contain further damage to the stakeholders involved.
I have no problems with different opinions; they are healthy. I am all for governing laws; God forbid that there aren’t. What I am against is that the governing law is flexed depending on interests of influential people.
Patrick Pace
Feb 10th, 22:34
Mr Darmanin, fuq dan il-punt NAQBEL MIEGHEK 100%.
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 17:32
There is definitely a disagreement between what the case officer is saying and what St Augustine are saying. Why is this case not presented to an independent board to decide - but it really must be an independent board with no strings attached!
You might tell me that St Augustine should appeal. Agreed, but if the appeal is to take 2 years, then it is another way of saying no for the primary school. The decision needs to be taken in a timely manner otherwise the students, parents and teachers will suffer and whoever has an interest for this project not to proceed will benefit.
Patrick Pace
Feb 10th, 18:57
There is always "a disagreement between what the case officer is saying and the applicant" in cases of refusal of MEPA permit. I really wish that this would be possible but not just for this case....but for all that have been refused, AND more importantly for cases in which the permit WAS granted much to the disagreement of all entities involved except MEPA. I am afraid the school has no chance of having an independent board because the precedent that would be created would cause havoc. As for your statement that "whoever has an interest for this project not to proceed will benefit", I can assure you there are no "benefits", you just have to accept that in life, there exists the right to differ and with all dur respect when this happens, there is a governing law.
C Muscat
Feb 10th, 19:56
The case officer wanted to be funny in this permit to state that the design is modern when the architect managed to blend with the existing and practically continue the design. This is pure arrogance and in a radio programme Mr Walker made it clear that it is normal practice that the client's architect is the one to be the architect as long as he respects the Land Use guidelines.
The other reason is that the building will be creating some shade to theT adjacent building; very absurd especially with the news that MEPA is not responsible for views (see recent news in 'The Times' MDA re MEPA).
C Muscat
Feb 10th, 16:56
Ghal min staqsa hemmx skola hdejja nghidlu li hemm 5 kbar. Allura bir-ragun nistaqsi lil dawn:
It-tfal taghkom marru skola jew qaghdu jistudjaw id-dar? Il-parti kbira ta' l-iskejjel qeghdin fl-abitant u allura l-MEPA tistma lil kulhadd l-istess jew tohrog dan il-permess(Messu kien approvat mal-ewwel u fi zmien ftit xhur) jew taghlaq l-iskejjel ta hdejja ghax jien nies daqws kull resident...
Ghal min ghandu xi dubju, tajjeb li kieku jara l-file ghax veru tal-misthija dan ir-refusal dejjem jekk hawn min jaf jisthi..
This case, as the architect and if you are conversant as any other architect knows, this building follows all rules and regulations within MEPA guidelines and the case officer's report is out of sinc. The only problem with this permit is NOT IN MY BACKYARD as some residents are saying (but they have sent and are sending their children to schools at residents backyards).
It is as shame to see how long this permit has been at MEPA's desk that is a permit of 2009 being rejected in 2012......What a shame even if it was as it should have been accepted...more than 2 years....because some important resident/s do not want to hear our children during 15minutes break.....
Joe Morana
Feb 10th, 15:20
"The planning officer on the case said the design and height of the proposed building were unacceptable. He said the project lacked coordination, would constitute overdevelopment of the site and failed to respect the context of the urban conservation area."
Contrary to Pieta residents Sliema residents have been very 'unlucky' with MEPA's 'planning' officers !!!! Many would agree that Sliema's development projects duly authorised by MEPA are also lacking 'coordination' consitute overdevelopment and fail to respect urban sustainable development defying MEPA's own Northern Harbour Local Plan (2006). The Tigne projects and the upcomming Sliema Strand (Forestals) projects are typical examples of MEPA's so called 'urban planning '. So much for MEPA's 'planning' officers
Joe Morana
Feb 10th, 15:17
"The planning officer on the case said the design and height of the proposed building were unacceptable. He said the project lacked coordination, would constitute overdevelopment of the site and failed to respect the context of the urban conservation area."
Contrary to Pieta residents Sliema residents have been very 'unlucky' with MEPA's 'planning' officers !!!! Many would agree that Sliema's development projects duly authorised by MEPA are also lacking 'coordination' consitute overdevelopment and fail to respect urban sustainable development defying MEPA's own Northern Harbour Local Plan (2006). The Tigne projects and the upcomming Sliema Strand (Forestals) projects are typical examples of MEPA's so called 'urban planning '. So much for MEPA's 'planning' officers
Ramon Casha
Feb 10th, 15:03
It would be wrong of the PM to put pressure on MEPA to decide differently. If decisions are changed because of the parents and children, then next time a big concrete block of flats is going to be built in a historic area or an ODZ location, the developer can just truck in the prospective buyers and hold a similar protest and get things approved. The fact that it's a school or that it belongs to the church is neither here nor there. If the development is within the conditions for that region it should be approved, if it does not, it should be rejected and that's all there is to it.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 10th, 14:51
Fr Scerri seems to believe that he has an automatic right to build this school and the laws of the land are just an obstacle to be surmounted.
C Muscat
Feb 10th, 16:28
You are totally wrong. This case, as the architect and if you are conversant as any other architect knows, this building follows all rules and regulations within MEPA guidelines and the case officer's report is out of sinc. The only problem with this permit is NOT IN MY BACKYARD as some residents are saying (but they have sent and are sending their children to schools at residents backyards).
It is as shame to see how long this permit has been at MEPA's desk that is a permit of 2009 being rejected in 2012......What a shame even if it was as it should have been accepted...more than 2 years....because some important resident/s do not want to hear our children during 15minutes break.....
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 17:21
What does Fr Scerri have to gain from the new school, other than added responsibilities? It is the present students and future students that will benefit.
The laws are not an obstacle to be surmounted and are there to be observed. Do you think that they are always observed? Sometimes they are skewed to one side - the reasons I will not go into. In other cases (as is this case) they are skewed to the other side - I leave you to comprehend what the reason may be! Both cases are wrong. What Fr Scerri wants is a fair hearing and a decision that is not based on the pullings of any strings!
Patrick Pace
Feb 10th, 14:45
Dr Saliba, Mr Bartolo, I truly respect your opinions, any one`s opinions even when different to mine. In this case however, I have a funny feeling we are much closer than we care to admit, it`s the `how to do it` that we are differing. That I truly believe can be solved by good communication by the parties concerned, a proper policy by the government to legislate and help such cases where the human resources are available and up to standard thus ready to be facilitated with, why not, the granting of unutilised property for conversion into a good school. St Augustine`s matter can and should be resolved calmly. Its hardly a national issue so sorry but the protest was out of order and a bad example to the kids. As for MEPA decisions, now THAT is a national matter. It applied the rules by the book for this school, but is notorious for its lack of utilising the same weights and measures in its decisions. That is why we are in this situation. And by invoking the Prime Minister to `force` MEPA to close a blind eye for this school is in my opinion giving the ultimate bad example to the very children this whole school project is aimed for. Should we take it upon us to `teach` them...."Others have cheated so therefore we will fight for the right to cheat too". I think not. Let us still push to build a new school, as soon as possible, in an appropriate place, setting an example for all to follow.
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 15:36
Government itself is building new schools rather than using old ones. There is sense in so doing because the needs of schools today with the National Educational Reform and all, are very different from that of old.
Really if the two schools - primary and secondary - are set up in different locations, do you think this would be a better utilisation of the limited resources - including land and the environment?
Regarding the kids participating in the protest - do you mind leaving that matter with us sensible and responsible parents? If you admit others have cheater, we won't, we want nothing more than is our right.
If you really attended church school - do you really believe that the money your parents paid to the school were not worth a worthy investment? I bless every penny that my parents paid!
C Muscat
Feb 10th, 16:19
You are totally wrong. This case, as the architect and if you are conversant as any other architect knows, this building follows all rules and regulations within MEPA guidelines and the case officer's report is out of sinc. The only problem with this permit is NOT IN MY BACKYARD as some residents are saying (but they have sent and are sending their children to schools at residents backyards).
It is as shame to see how long this permit has been at MEPA's desk that is a permit of 2009 being rejected in 2012......What a shame even if it was as it should have been accepted...more than 2 years....because some important resident/s do not want to hear our children during 15minutes break.....
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 10th, 18:40
@ Patrick Pace (10 Feb at 14:45)
The real problem is that MEPA has been given an undeserved immunity from scrutiny by the courts of law for most of its technical decisions.
The inevitable, forseeable result is that MEPA has become a rogue uncontrollable monster ostensibly unaccountable to anybody, including the law, with its DCC granting outrageous permits to a select powerful few, often with obvious political clout, whereas weaker deserving applicants are refused permits that cannot be considered outrageous in any way.
The political arm pleads that MEPA is an independent organisation outside its control. As a result only public outcry has any chance of inducing MEPA to rescind any scandalous decisions by its Development Control Commission.
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 13:50
Certain people may have a grudge towards church authorities…but forget about such authorities!
Parents and students did not take part in the petition and protest because someone instructed them to do so, but because they understand the implications of the school not being built in a timely manner. Do not underestimate the students, they know what it means having to change school again (they have just gone through such a change), having to again part with their friends and having to forfeit the values, education and love they are getting from their dedicated teachers. Unlike some grown-ups, our younger generation are not prepared to just take no for an answer just because someone ‘superior’ said so particularly if that ‘superior’ is not right or worse still is hiding behind excuses. Provided this non-complacent characteristic of our young ones is coupled with another very important characteristic which is discipline (a key value within the school) the future of our country augurs well.
The pressure on the prime minister is not being made by parents and students but by two other parties:
- Those individuals who are directly involved in the political scene and who have publicly admitted that they do not want the school to be built because of their own personal and egoistic reasons. The other reasons they are bringing are fluff.
- Those government agencies that consistently behave in an inconsistent manner; particularly the organization that took so much time to process the application for the primary school. This placed the Church Authorities in a situation where they had to proceed with enrolling students otherwise the School would not be in a position to align to the National Education Reform – a direction issued by Government.
I suggest that we stay away from any controversies and politics and proceed responsibly and sensibly with what is best for the future of our nation.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 10th, 13:01
I am not a betting man but would surely bet on a sure thing, so I am ready to bet that St.Agustine's College will finally get their permit with the prime min ister's intervention.
.
What better electoral PR exercise is there.?
C Muscat
Feb 10th, 16:30
X tippretndi case officer mifxghul u ma jridx jaghmel xoghlu sew u l-prim ministru jahlli l uliedna ltiema!!!
Ms.D. Galea
Feb 10th, 12:42
What is the opinion of the MINISTERS of EDUCATION and MEPA and their counterparts in the Labour party, about depriving these children of an education IN THE SCHOOL OF THEIR CHOICE?
Patrick Pace
Feb 10th, 11:22
So the church nowadays resorts to putting children in the frontline to put pressure on the prime minister to overturn what they were LEGALLY denied. If we look at this matter without all the hype and passion, we can easily come to the conclusion that the problem lies with the sole fact that this college enrolled students to a school THEY DID NOT HAVE and now they expect the government to solve their problem by permitting them to convert a large garden into a block of concrete. With hand on heart they come forward stating how much they care about the education of these kids when the underlying problem REALLY is loss of monetary income. As for the parents I understand their concern but the main issue here is not MEPA or the government, but the fact that they were completely misguided and given false pretensions by the school. I would take it up with the Curia, certainly not with local authorities.
Ms.D. Galea
Feb 10th, 12:50
What loss of monetary income? The church actually makes a loss whilst saving a lot of (government)tax payer money when providing an eccellent education for Maltese children from all walks of life irres[ective of their parents' income.
What garden? Hardly the hanging gardens of Babylon or the gardens of Versailles or prime agricultural land in Zebbiegh that got ruined when a school for the elitist few was built.
Shades of JEW B'XEJN JEW XEJN with a strong dose of NIMBY-ism more like it.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Feb 10th, 13:08
Every citizen and his dog has the right to peaceful assembly and to protest against adminstrative decisions that, although legal, affect the individual and his/her family adversely. But, apparently, according to Patrick Pace, not if the aggrieved entity is a Church organisation. The chorus against MEPA decisions from all quarters is deafening but a Church school, and families who are eager to send their children there, are an exception to the rule and they must not be allowed to add their voice to the widespread discontent.
Castigate the Church - that is the current version of the mob's cry "to the guillotine!"
Mr Mark Bartolo
Feb 10th, 13:11
Loss of monetary income ... seriously? When you consider the enormous capital outlay to build and furnish the school, as well as the huge everyday running costs, and also consider that this will be offset by a measly donation, one can arrive at a different conclusion. And all this not to mention the responsibility for the education and formation of thousands of youngsters.
Patrick Pace
Feb 10th, 13:52
Ms Galea, first of all I used to go to a church school and appreciate the good work being done in ALL church schools in Malta. However your points dont make sense and show your ignorance of facts....if the church is running its schools at a loss then it is irresponsible because entities running at a loss are nowadays bound to have to close down. Therefore it would be a case of endangering not only the school itself but the subsequent educational benefits of such a school as well as the financial situation of the teachers and their families. I am not saying the school should not make money, far from it, but it should not hide behind a mask of a so called `mission` for the community when after all the main purpose would be to increase its coffers. Your ignorance of the importance of sustainability in the maltese islands may be forgiven but it certainly does not give you or the school the right to put it at peril when there IS a solution and it would result in a WIN/WIN situation. In short, BUILD YOUR SCHOOL but NOT ON A GREEN AREA. For God`s sake (no pun intended) I am hardly inventing rocket science when I am suggesting for this school to be built on an already developed and unused site. Malta is littered with them, so rather than taking the quick solution of building next doort the church should be at the forefront of giving example of caring for the maltese island whilst continuing in its TRUE mission. The adjacent garden is as you state in a bad condition. Well the school should simply take it over to provide its pupils with an area to utilise for nature study purposes, development of awareness on maltese plants and trees, an area where we instill in our pupils the need to take care of the FEW remaiining green areas in the harbour area. As for your totally wrong assumption, I was (proudly) one of those who demonstrated against the "Jew B`xejn Jew Xejn" stance taken by KMB in the 80s. And I live in the South of Malta, but unlike you, the problems of the citizens in other parts of Malta - I consider my own too. Dont assume because you know what the saying says....rather appropriate in your case.
L Darmanin
Feb 10th, 15:46
What green area??? Is the garden in question not within the development zone???
Franco Farrugia
Feb 11th, 10:25
It is absolutely condemnable that the school authorities chose to allow students to take part in this disgusting and sorry protest! Absolutely un-educational and un-inspiring. I think that the Rector's head should roll, over this matter.