With all the accusations and denials in this week’s gripping episode of our Game of Scandals series, we risk losing sight of the storyline.
The latest twist in the plot involves the dubious transfer of a large site at St George’s Bay to entrepreneur Silvio Debono’s Seabank Group, leading to public outcry and political mayhem. But this deal is also part of a bigger story which started some time back. Let us rewind to last year.
Last October the government published its draft Paceville master plan. Essentially this embraced nine high-rise proposals and built a national plan around them. These big projects were placed above other considerations.
The draft master plan did not present much of a vision for existing residents or businesses. Instead it promoted a feeding frenzy for property magnates, like fish going berserk around a piece of bread.
Property speculation and direct financial interests appear to have piggybacked on a planning process which should primarily promote the public interest. The way in which these nine proposals were selected was not transparent. The Planning Authority passed them on behind closed doors to the consultants tasked with drafting the plan, Mott Macdonald.
When the master plan was published, its first bombshell involved the proposed extensive expropriation and demolition of private residences and commercial outlets. This is intended to create open spaces and ‘view corridors’, which will balance out the high-rise. In other words, expropriation is required to fully implement the plan and thereby facilitate the big projects. Obviously, people were up in arms.
Compensation was mentioned, but without providing details. Knowing how compensation for expropriation was handled by past governments, with court cases dragging on for decades, people are understandably apprehensive. The Café Premier and Gaffarena sagas do not inspire confidence in the procedures and structures currently handling the system either.
Government promises should be presented openly before the election not afterwards. People living and working in the area want to know what is in store
Many questions about the compensatory mechanism were raised. Besides the current market value of the properties, what about the added value that their expropriation would contribute to the locality? Will future redevelopment get extra floor space as compensation? What are the timeframes? What exactly is the public purpose for this expropriation?
In their rush to publish and approve the high-rise projects in the master plan, the authorities had clearly not considered how deeply this would affect everyone else. These massive developments are also likely to overload the infrastructure of the area. The lion’s share of the costs of upgrading the infrastructure will probably be borne by taxpayers and not the developers, forgoing public investment in other community services.
The nine projects were not described closely in the master plan, which only gave their outline. Details then started to emerge.
Doubts immediately hovered around the Mercury House proposal near the former telephone exchange. The shape of this project was known as it was already being promoted. Mott Macdonald had acted as advisors on it, initially raising questions of conflict of interest. Moreover, the development brief regulating this site was allegedly not reflected in the masterplan.
Questions were also raised on the Portomaso land reclamation project. This was among 21 proposals submitted in 2013. Inclusion in the master plan gives it fast-track treatment before the others, which are still under wraps.
Residents were outraged by the proposal for high towers right on the foreshore at Cresta Quay. The controversial Paceville master plan was then sent back to the drawing board.
But the government’s recent granting of a concession to Seabank Group on the ITS site pre-empts the ongoing revision of the plan. The tender for this site was issued last year. It then featured in the draft master plan with the other big projects.
This tender was apparently not accompanied by a development brief, which would have ensured a level of scrutiny and set out the planning parameters for the site. Bypassing this procedure has resulted in a proposal which is excessive and inappropriate for its site and context. Its residential blocks denote the use of public land for further private speculation.
The lack of proper planning procedure leads directly to the latest revelation, that one of its two proposed towers falls outside the approved high-rise areas. This block seems to be set on what is currently a large public car park within Pembroke at the back of the site. But Pembroke was excluded from the high-rise policy. Will the government now bend policy to accommodate this tower, or will the developer leave it out?
The second draft Paceville master plan was expected this May. But it is not being taken forward in a hurry, and rumours are that it will not be published before the upcoming general election to avoid further controversy.
The master plan will affect the lives and homes of thousands of people who live around Paceville, Swieqi and St Julian’s. Government promises should be presented openly before the election not afterwards. People living and working in the area want to know what is in store.
petracdingli@gmail.com