Portomaso is 22 floors high. Townsquare, the project approved just days ago will be 38 storeys high. Seen in conjunction with the soon-to-be-decided 40-storey Cambridge Hotel we will have the equivalent of almost four Portomaso towers on the tiny peninsula of Tignè.

Readers may recall the fanfare over the Mepa split into two separate entities, one handling planning and the other the environment, when then environment minister Leo Brincat promised a new era for the environment in Malta. During that Thursday’s public hearings on the two high-rise projects, one in Mrieħel and the other in Tignè, Victor Axiak, chairman of the Environment and Resources Authority failed to turn up for health reasons. He represented the entire environmental side of the planning process. Rules do not allow him to nominate someone in his stead.

Representing the Sliema local council on the board, prior to the vote I specifically asked the Planning Authority chairman to point out whether the ERA is represented. Several times I asked for a postponement of the vote as a decision could not be taken at that point in time.

The board failed to accept that a vote on a project of such magnitude should not be held without the presence of the ERA. This failure is significant in that, should Prof. Axiak have voted against the (Sliema) project. the outcome would have been a 7 – 7 tie, with the chairman, who voted against, having a casting vote.

Beyond the close vote, it is scandalous that, in a five-hour session, in which the developers had ample time to present their case, at no point was a single comment made from the perspective of the absent ERA.

Most significantly, while the board representatives who were in favour of the project consisted primarily of the Labour government nominees, who voted for en bloc, it was only one member who explained his position.

Is it possible the others had nothing to say? Or were they just there to follow instructions? How is it possible that you have nothing to say during a five-hour long debate and just yawn until it is time to put your hand up in favour?

At one point, Timmy Gambin, one of the members who voted in favour, complained that he once sent an e-mail to the local council which remained unanswered. One must surely have no arguments to make if such an out-of-context, irrelevant comment is the best one can make.

On the contrary, every single member who voted against, including myself on behalf of the Sliema local council, the chairman and the Nationalist Party representative, explained their position and why they were voting against.

Not a single word was uttered by the Labour appointees, beyond the huffs and puffs when residents and NGO representatives spoke.

We have policies on chimneys and rooms for farmers but not for towers twice the size of Portomaso

In September 2015, I had penned an article in which I warned that, for such development, we cannot rely on the biased and flawed studies of developers. There was ample proof of this bias during the board meeting.

While making their presentation, the consultants, Adi Associates, stated that, traffic was down on the Qui-Si-Sana seafront road between 2005 and 2015. I pointed out that such a conclusion is impossible in view of the fact that the Tignè tunnel had not been built in 2005 and that, therefore, few cars went through that street because traffic flowed through Bisazza Street. When Bisazza Street was pedestrianised and the tunnel was opened, traffic obviously increased.

We were told that, way back in 2005, estimates of what traffic would be in 2015 were done and the figures were compared with the estimates carried out 10 years before. Who cares about estimates done in 2005? We are now very well aware of the consequence traffic is having on our everyday lives.

I then pointed out that, in their presentation, they failed to mention the additional cars attracted by the development. It seems that this a point is inconsequential while old estimates are relevant.

I referred to statistics from the Adi Associates report indicating that, every weekday at 6pm there will be 511 additional cars on the Strand as a result of the Townsquare development. These figures are listed without an overview of the impact in terms of delays motorists commuting at the same time would have to endure.

I also asked whether there would be a domino effect on Gżira and Marsa, which are already jammed. The reply I was given was that the data on the delays was available but they did not have it with them.

For the sake of the respect every Maltese driver deserves, I again appeal to the Adi Associates to tell us what the delays would be. There will come a time when Gasan and other private entities involved in the Townsquare project will be pleading with government for better transport management.

Architect Anna Dora Deguara, as the case officer on the Townsquare project, made a presentation based on her report. Her original report, published on June 13, had a table which stated that the medium parking standard for the area requires 982 onsite parking spaces. The developers only provided 748 parking spaces, a shortfall of a staggering 234 spaces.

On the day of the hearing, she tweaked the table and prominently stated that the maximum requirement is below 300. So the maximum is less than the median by over 600 parking spaces. Apart from the fact that these different figures are difficult to comprehend, it is unacceptable that a new figure of parking requirements is presented on the day of the hearing.

This issue is of primary concern to us, the local council. We can only participate and contribute to the debate on behalf of residents after we study the conclusions of reports. It is rather suspect when these conclusions are altered in favour of the developer at the very last minute.

On the issue of parking, it is pertinent to point out that 18 parking spaces will be removed from the Qui-Si-Sana seafront road. This is a red line for the council and, needless to say, nobody raised it in their presentations.

We simply cannot build towers without having the environmental entities vote on the matter and without any proper analysis of the traffic mayhem that will ensue. The fault lies with the government, which drew up a policy for tall buildings, which says that the policy is, in fact, not a policy. How crazy can it get?

I quote from the floor area ratio document: “At this stage, without a detailed urban design study/character appraisal of the identified locations, it is not appropriate or practicable to develop a policy.” In black on white, an admission that the policy is, in fact, inexistent.

We have policies on chimneys and rooms for farmers but not for towers twice the size of Portomaso.

This is beyond irresponsible planning; it is utter madness.

paul.radmilli@gov.mt

Paul Radmilli is a PN representative on the Sliema local council.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.