As a Naxxar resident, I was struck by the slogan ‘Do not bury us alive’ at the recent Pembroke protest against the 27-storey ITS development.
This is a feeling which I share and which is being increasingly shared by fellow Naxxar residents in view of the application for a massive 60 tumoli project on the Naxxar Trade Fair grounds. ‘Do not bury us alive’ expresses a profound feeling of helplessness and of being forced to embrace a grim reality.
For us residents this is a reality which we need not accept. Not if we believe in the supreme right to health. Or if we believe that residents are sovereign in the place where they live, play and rest – their locality, that is.
The development permitting process suffers from a fundamental flaw. It is dictated by technocrats at the Planning Authority with an insignificant representation of residents’ wishes, concerns and proposals.
The mere boycotting of a development proposal by local councils (as in the Sliema case) and/or by the residents is enough evidence that residents do not feel any sense of ownership of development proposals such as those at Townsquare (Sliema), ITS (Pembroke) or at the Naxxar Trade Fair grounds.
We, the residents, should have ownership of any kind of development proposal which is significant in scale and which happens in our backyard. We should have a stake in the decision-making process of a development application which is likely to affect our right to health and our quality of life. And the right to health does not mean the mere absence of disease, but a right to the enjoyment of one’s physical, mental and social health (World Health Organization, 1946).
If we believe in the principle of subsidiarity, then we should start embracing the view that residents are sovereign in the place where they live
This does not mean that people lose the right to develop private land and property. This means that any development needs to respect the right to human wellbeing and that it should not be pursued blindly at the cost of leaving victims in its trail. At the end of the day, we want a win-win situation.
Private property is a social institution, and the development of private land should ultimately be a win-win situation, both for the developer and for residents. This is only possible if residents and local councils have a higher stake in the development permitting process of proposals of large developments.
Furthermore, if we believe in the principle of subsidiarity, then we should start embracing the view that residents are sovereign in the place where they live, raise their family and rest. Just as we resist the idea that outsiders should dictate how we furnish our kitchens, we should start encouraging the idea that non-residents should not dictate what is best for residents.
At the end of the day, it is the Pembroke residents who have to face the aftermath of a planning decision in Pembroke. It is the Naxxar residents who will have to live with the grim reality of more congestion, more pollution and the disfigurement of a village which they do not identify with.
The Naxxar Trade Fair project would consist of around 490 residential units, 5,000 square metres of offices and 3,000 square metres of commercial outlets, just off Naxxar’s urban conservation area.
Residents are concerned that at the end of a 10-year construction process, this massive development will create traffic and human congestion, and will change once and forever the social dynamics of Naxxar, including the village centre, the San Pawl tat-Tarġa area and Birguma.
Maltese society needs to start thinking again of development as a win-win proposal to all and not merely as a fast money-making opportunity where winner (developer) takes all.
It is time that local councils, resident groups and residents be given their proper place in the decision-making process of proposals that affect their wellbeing. It is time that residents sit around the decision-making table at the Planning Authority. It is time that a fair balance is struck between the national and the local interest, and that decisions are negotiated in a process of public deliberation which secures the best outcome for all.
Until this time arrives, residents and institutions that represent them should have the authority to block proposals that overall are deemed to affect their livelihoods significantly and adversely.
Roberto Debono is a medical doctor and a specialist in public health medicine. He is fellow of the Faculty of Public Health (UK).