Works on a 564kW solar farm at Mater Dei Hospital have stalled after it transpired that the project was not covered by a development permit.
The delay forced a contractor to deposit several photovoltaic panel steel supports outside the emergency department, where they have been left for a number of weeks.
Concerned by the unsightly view at such a sensitive location, a number of readers contacted this newspaper, questioning whether the items had been dumped with the hospital authority’s blessing.
A Health Ministry spokeswoman confirmed that the structures were meant to support photovoltaic panels which were planned to generate up to 564kW.
These structures have been transported very recently to Mater Dei in preparation for the start of installation of the panels
“The ministry is informed that these structures have been transported very recently to Mater Dei in preparation for the start of installation of the panels,” she said.
However, questions on the tendering process, the project’s financial outlay and the reason for which the works had stalled were not answered.
Meanwhile, a simple search on the planning authority’s map server revealed that last March, a fast-track development application was filed to place a metal structure and overlying PV panels above the Mater Dei car park, next to the Birkirkara bypass.
Once in place, the panels will also serve to provide some cover from the hot summer sun. This development notification order, as it is technically known, was signed by hospital CEO Ivan Falzon and architect Simon Darmanin.
The project hit a snag, however, as on April 25, the Planning Authority informed the applicant that it had decided to reject the application.
Consequently, a full development permit application was filed a month later, on May 12. By the time of writing the application was still pending.
In the wake of this publicly available information, this newspaper asked the Health Ministry to clarify a number of issues, primarily the reason why the steel structures were purchased before the permit was in hand.
This newspaper also enquired about who took the decision and who would shoulder responsibility in case the Planning Authority once again turned down the application. By the time of writing, no replies had been received.