|
Gerald Fenech
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority took just 12 days to approve the Project Description Statement for the SmartCity project in Ricasoli, according to documentation seen by Malta Today.
The PDS was formally accepted in a letter signed by Mepa director general Godwin Cassar, dated 2 May, after the Malta Government Technology Investments Ltd submitted the original PDS on 20 April – less than two weeks before final approval. While there is no indication of any “short-circuiting” of the process, the PDS has nonetheless been given the green light in record time.
However, Cassar cited a number of amendments which need to be tackled before the whole project is eventually given the final go ahead.
MEPA’s director general recommends that a section referring to the draft Replacement Structure Plan Policies be removed, as said policy is still internal and has no relevance to the Smart City development.
Another amendment in the PDS is the recommendation that streets are reclassified from the open areas. Elsewhere, important amendments include the replacement of the word “lodging” with “residential” wherever applicable. This is due to the fact that the term “lodging” has commercial connotations, which are applicable to some aspects of the project (e.g. the hotel) but not to all.
A conflict between the PDS and the Construction Management Plan has also been noted. The PDS envisages demolition waste to be reutilised, whilst the CMP states that this will be disposed of.
Finally, Mepa recommends that sensitive aspects of the project such as zoning and building heights should take into account the surrounding land use, which should also be subject to the findings of the Environmental Impact Statement.
The letter also notes that the proposed development requires the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment, although it adds that if the said EIA is carried out, a reply will be required within 30 days of receipt of the letter.
MEPA also notes that the EIS is considered as a public document and in its review, it consults widely with local councils, other regulators, NGO’s and the general public.
However the letter also states that if some parts of the EIS are to remain confidential, these should be indicated accordingly with a written justification of the reasons for denying public access to the documents. The decision whether confidentiality should be applied is MEPA’s prerogative, and is final. |
