Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1000343
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 JULY 2018 INTERVIEW The Times recently ran a story that 200 mature Aleppo pines would be uprooted in the vicinity of Saqqaja Hill. Your ministry claimed this was a case of 'fake news'. Yet the original plans, submitted to the Planning Authority, did indeed indicate that intention... only for new plans to be submitted afterwards. How, therefore, can that news story be described as 'fake'? First of all, it would be good to explain what this project is about. This is a project that has been in the pipeline for decades: since the end of the 1980s. For various reasons, which I can- not answer for myself, my pre- decessors decided to leave it on the shelf. The aim is to connect the north of the island – locali- ties such as Mosta, Mgarr, Rabat, Mtarfa, Dingli, Zebbug, Siggie- wi – with Attard, Hal-Lija, Hal Balzan, L-Iklin... and eventually, Birkirkara and Mriehel. At pre- sent the 'corridor' of Attard has become a bottleneck: all the ve- hicles passing through, especially in the early morning, end up go- ing round what is effectively a village centre... so not only does it slow down the traffic in gen- eral, but it also contributes to air pollution, with the result that the families in Attard are suffer- ing. We need to implement this project, to continue improving the traffic situation in the centre of the country. After works have been done on the Coast Road and Kappara, Marsa is on the way... but in the centre, no inter- ventions have been carried out. No one is contesting the need for this project; it is the proposed intervention itself that has raised questions... [Nodding] The issue of trees. We are talking about a process of application, between the ap- plicant – Transport Malta – and the regulatory authority, which in this case is the Planning Au- thority. In such applications, it is common practice for archi- tects to submit tentative plans, according to the consultations taking place in the background. These [plans] were the first set of plans, drawn up by external architects, after consultation – both internally, on the part of government, and also with other authorities: namely, the Environ- ment and Resources Authority – that concluded it was unac- ceptable to uproot those Aleppo pines. In fact, we had asked for a revision of the plans... But was this request made before, or after the plans came out in public? There is where the problem lies. The TM architect submitted the first set of plans, not the sec- ond. Internally, we need to see how this mistake occurred... and I don't doubt it was a mistake. But on that Saturday morning, when the news was reported... I was the first to be shocked; and I checked with Transport Malta. A few minutes later – you can check the PA file – the new set of plans was uploaded. You don't draw up new plans in a few min- utes. Those plans had already been revised. Where I think the journalist made a mistake – I'm not an expert in media; I'll leave it to MaltaToday readers to draw their own conclusions – is that he could have asked the authorities to confirm whether those plans, which he quietly intended to publish front-page, on Saturday morning, were the ones govern- ment had approved. We would have told him: 'No. There are other plans, which we discussed on the understanding that those trees are to be respected, and not uprooted.' Following that, how- ever: that is, a few minutes after the story was published, and we uploaded the up-to-date plans... we still carried on improving the project. On Wednesday, we an- nounced that only 15 trees would be affected. And still we carried on improving... now, only three trees will be removed. All the same, the original plans had been submitted to the PA; and the PA takes its decisions on the basis of the plans submitted. If that story hadn't appeared... would those improvements have taken place? The PA will decide on the ba- sis of the final plans submitted by the applicant. The final plans have not been submitted yet. In the meantime, consultation will continue... and I can assure you that in the final plans, only three trees between the chapel of At- tard and Rabat will be affected. But let's not talk only about the negative aspects: we will also be planting an additional 300 ma- ture trees. The bottom line is that the people finally have a govern- ment that will be implementing this project; and this project will mean less time spent in traffic; less emissions; and from a road which had 300 trees, it will now have 600. Earlier you mentioned that this project has been in the pipeline for 30 years. Why do you think previous administrations put it on the backburner for so long? Without a doubt, there are a number of residents who are resisting the project. But they know – or would have known, when they bought their proper- ties or moved to that area – that the road in front of them was ear- marked for this project. And it's not just any old street, but a ma- jor arterial road... and this project had been included in all the local plans, including the most recent ones drawn up in 2006: the ones that still govern us today. That year, parliament, once again, de- cided that the Rabat road had to be upgraded. But we didn't focus only on the Attard bottleneck; that's why we included Mriehel. To solve one bottleneck, while leaving the others as they are, would not make sense. It would only cause the project to fail... Traffic has been a dominant issue for some time now, as repeatedly evidenced by surveys; yet it seems that the approach adopted by all governments to date has been to extend/improve the existing road network. In such a small country, this inevitably translates into a trade-off between new (or wider) roads, and the natural environment. Isn't this a short-sighted strategy? I disagree with that on two counts. You mentioned surveys; since last October, MaltaToday surveys have shown that pub- lic concern with traffic has de- creased by half in the last eight months. It could be because of certain projects carried out over that period, which resulted in a perceived improvement. It could also be that other concerns 'overtook' traffic... one of them possibly being the environment. But the concern, in itself, has diminished. The second thing I disagree with is that past govern- ments always widened roads, or addressed bottlenecks. I'd say it's the other way round... in the 1990s and early 2000s, National- ist governments were narrowing roads, not widening them. If the Transport and Infrastructure Minister, IAN BORG, is coy about his own future political aspirations, but outspoken in defence of controversial infrastructure projects such as the redevelopment of the Rabat Road, and his government's public transport achievements The PA will decide on the basis of the f inal plans submitted by the applicant... I can assure you that in the f inal plans, only three trees between the chapel of Attard and Rabat will be affected The roads go ever on Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt