|
In 1999 a brief was issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority for the restoration or rebuilding of the chalet and for a car park under the Ghar id-Dud promenade. The brief was presented in 1999 in a public meeting by the PA and then parliamentary secretary George Pullicino. The brief had a nostalgic photo or sketch of the original Chalet and promised the following conditions:
1. That the new chalet structure would not be higher than the promenade (1999-5.21-5.29); 2. That the foreshore should be retained in its natural state (1999-5.26); 3. External views to the sea from the promenade must not be interrupted (1999-5.22); 4. No breakwaters within the bay (1999-5.30); 5. The chalet new structure not extend beyond the existing footprint (1999-5.26); 6. The parking was included to ‘alleviate the residents parking problems’ in Sliema. (1999-3.1.2); 7. The space below the promenade is to be used as a car park (1999-5.13).
Back in 1999, the chalet brief little criticism from the Sliema residents present at the public meeting after they were assured of the mentioned seven conditions.
The hot issue at the time was ‘the dreaded Sliema Traffic Plan’ which is now resurfacing again. The main comments about the Chalet project was that the all the caves including Ghar id-Dud and Ghar il-Lembi should be protected and many argued that the Chalet building should be brought back to its former glory.
In 2002, Cabinet signed off on a different brief to the one that was discussed with the public. The seven conditions promised above were nearly all violated. There was no public consultation on this new December 2000 brief.
According to MEPA between February 1999 brief and the December 2000 brief, in less than two years the sea level between the promenade and the sea went down circa three metres, that is coincidently the height of one storey (1999-2.5 and 2000-2.5). This phenomena should be reported worldwide as it disproves the ‘greenhouse effect’ and the ‘melting polar’ regions theories.
While the whole world is contending that the sea level is getting higher the difference in MEPA’s two briefs implies that the sea level is decreasing by at least three meters every two years. This would also imply that since the brief was written there should be a further nine meters difference, therefore, by now we should be looking at dry land all around the chalet project extending to about thirty or forty metres out at sea. This is hardly the case. This is the unprofessional manner that these development briefs are being produced.
Although we were told that the mentioned seven brief conditions were ‘set in stone’ by the PS and Planning Authority during their presentation, this is what happened:
1. The new brief read that the main building should not be higher than 3.3metres from the level of the promenade (2000-5.2). This is an increase of one floor to the original brief. It is obvious that the requirement that ‘new chalet structure would not be higher than the promenade’ (1999-5.21-5.29) was changed to give the private contractor an enclosed floor at promenade level.
2. That the foreshore should be retained in its natural state (1999-5.26). This was removed from the document.
3. They also removed the condition that ‘the existing views of the sea from along the promenade must not be interrupted so as to maintain the panoramic vistas’ (1999-5.22).
4. No breakwaters within the bay (1999-5.30) became ‘preferably not be permitted’ and the current application has a breakwater enclosing part of the bay.
5. The chalet new structure should not extend beyond the existing footprint (1999-5.26) was removed and became ‘should not ideally extend beyond the existing footprint’, together with a new condition that “a maximum increase of up to 150 square metres would be allowed.” (2000-5.2.6)
6. The parking was included to ‘alleviate the residents parking problems’ in Sliema. (1999-3.1.2) This was left in the brief however. This is an untruth as the new parking under the promenade is roughly what is required by MEPA policies for the new bars and restaurants that are being planned. This makes the residents parking problems much worse as this project would attract even more people to the area.
7. The space below the promenade was stipulated only to be used as a car park (1999-5.13). This was also changed to be used also for ‘facilities ancillary to the chalet uses’ (2000-5.1.3).
The caves issue became important, as the destruction of the caves seems to be a violation of European Union directives. MEPA had to take note of this as much correspondence was sent abroad regarding this national heritage and scientifically important site.
In fact MEPA’s own case officer report states that the cave habitats are protected by LN257/2003 and EU directive 92/43/EEC. The hydro-geological survey study stated that: the geological structures at Ghar id-Dud are scientifically important.
The cave habitats are also protected through Schedule I of LN257/2003, Annex I of EU Directive 92/43/EEC and are near the proposed Merkanti Reef candidate Marine Protected Area.
As an EU Member State Malta has an obligation, under the Habitats Directive, to nominate the best representatives of Submerged and Partially Submerged Sea-Caves (Natura 2000 Code 8330), 'submerged and partially submerged sea caves' are a marine habitat listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. Partially submerged sea caves are rarely encountered along the Maltese shoreline. This information is in the case officer’s report for the Chalet project (MEPA report PA 00486/02).
None of these conditions influenced the board as the board already agreed that important caves like Ghar il-Lembi could now be destroyed.
In my opinion, the board meeting on Thursday was a typical example of planning confusion. At one stage, during the public consultation, the board members disagreed between themselves and temporarily left the room to discuss the project in private.
The case officer’s slide presentation left out two of the main reasons why the project should be refused and after I pointed this out, he attributed this to the fact that there was not enough space on the presentation sheet to place all the reasons for refusal.
Tempers flared and a board member, Cikku Tabone, recommended that the window be kept locked, as there were threats that a Sliema Council member was going to be thrown out of the window.
Tempers also flared when the case officer presented new secret plans to the board that were submitted about 24 hours before the board meeting and these were miraculously included in the case officers projected presentation regardless of the usual time limits for objectors and concerned parties to see the plans. These last-minute plans addressed much of the reasons for refusal. Yet there was no mention in the report that the building was aesthetically not acceptable, as MEPA had told the Sliema Local Council.
The architect was more than slightly annoyed when he was told by a member of the board that his building was really ugly and said that no one mentioned this before to him. He should have been in Sliema when the elevations were published in the press to see the angered residents. Maybe he is not aware that even the popular media referred to the building as ‘the spaceship’ in Ghar id-dud.
The board made it crystal clear to the protestors that they are only subject to the Maltese Planning Act and not obliged to abide to the Aarhus conventions or European Union directives.
I pointed out that some caves that were initially in the way were kept out of the studies that MEPA commissioned. I was appalled by the board decision that the protected Ghar il-Lembi cave and other caves could now be destroyed to make way for more parking for the bars.
The applicant’s turn to speak consisted also of another detailed slide presentation and since this was allowed by the board the objectors are now planning their own slide presentations for the next sitting making the planning process seem more like a timeshare sales pitch rather than an intelligent debate.
The contractor has spent much money on this project and his architects or lawyers were fiercely contending that MEPA was misguiding them, after all they were working to a brief approved by cabinet and MEPA, the only problem was that they were not abiding with it or the board’s direction.
The site in question is one of the most important and treasured sites in Sliema. All Sliema residents love Ghar id-Dud. Ghar id-Dud without the caves does not make sense. Although it could be very expensive, the caves should be incorporated in the design, none of them should be destroyed. Maybe one of the many programmes on conservation of the European Union would contribute to this.
On the other hand, if the proposed parking is not for the residents then the whole car park purpose of ‘alleviate the residents parking problems’ is defeated.
Personally, I am not against a decent project instead of the Chalet, one that does not project over the height of the promenade, even if it means that the footprint is significantly larger and away from the foreshore. It is important that unlike Qawra the views from the promenade are preserved. The present sea view should not be obstructed by any construction. We have made this terrible mistake in other promenades.
In a few weeks the board shall decide on the application. If the applicant makes the board’s recommended changes, they will probably approve it and our heritage site of Ghar il-Lembi would be lost for ever.
The site has been public property for centuries and now the government is planning to hand most of it to private interest. If this is done we, the residents, want to make sure that whatever is done there, is also beneficial to our environment and to future generations.
Martin J. de Bono
Sliema councillor (MLP)
|
