The migrants' open centre near Hal Far is not covered by a Mepa permit, the Ombudsman has found.
The Ombudsman investigated the situation following a complaint by a businessman that the setting up of the open centre on a road leading to his weddings and events hall had led to a considerable loss of business.
The Ombudsman largely upheld the complaint and suggested that the government could consider financial compensation on the lines of what was done in the case of the owner of a villa in Delimara when he suffered the consequences of the building of the power station.
The complainant did not dispute the need to maintain the openness of the Centre or the need to integrate the immigrants within the country. However he argued that the application of these principles should not prejudice the rights of others.
The Ombudsman said his investigations confirmed the complainant's loss of business.
He found that the situation in the area was chaotic and also constituted a danger to drivers and pedestrians, besides ruining complainant’s business.
It was confirmed that the centre needed, but was not covered by, a Mepa permit, with the result that no Environmental Impact Assessment including an evaluation of the traffic impact in the area was ever carried out.
Complainant made four proposals on how the situation could be improved. These included the narrowing of the main gate of the Open Centre and its use solely for administrative functions; the opening of a small gate on the south side of the Centre, next to the container storage depot, for easy access to the residents of the Centre; an alternative place to accommodate hawkers which set up stalls around the area; and the erection of hoarding along existing fence to protect the privacy of residents.
The Ombudsman said that while he agreed that a certain amount of commercial activity was needed in the area, he considered that this should be regulated by the identification of a properly designed location, with hawkers duly licensed, and in full respect of regulations as applicable to other open markets.
The Ombudsman however expressed concern regarding any proposal that would in effect restrict the access of the immigrants to and from the Centre. He agreed that hawkers should not be allowed to converge on the main gate, but disagreed with the proposal of a hoarding in the area.
The Ombudsman recommended that the competent authorities including Mepa should investigate the situation to determine what steps were needed to be taken in line with his report so as to address complainant’s grievances.
Follow up
The Ombudsman said that despite his recommendations, there was no improvement in the sporadic police presence in the area. He had only succeeded to convince Mepa to ensure that an application for a permit to sanction was filed. This however is a long way off finalisation.
The Ombudsman brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister stressing that the lack of proper control of the situation in the area and lack of effective action by the responsible authorities had caused grievous financial losses to complainant.
He pointed out that if the administration was not in a position to solve the problem in the short term such as to enable complainant to carry out his commercial activity in a fair and effective manner, the government should consider that the Open Centre run by Government was in effect expropriating complainant’s property by rendering it unjustly valueless. The government should further consider that it was not fair for one single person to suffer in a disproportionate manner because of the interests of the country and should consequently compensate complainant.
The Ombudsman referred to an analogous case, a villa in Delimara where the Courts ordered compensation because of the negative effects of the Enemalta Power Station chimney to the detriment of the owner.