Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1357219
8 NEWS ANALYSIS maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 31 MARCH 2021 Dingli impasse: why new roads should INFRASTRUCTURE Malta did not require a permit to carry out roadworks in the vicinity of the scheduled Santa Duminka medieval chapel, which passed right through 300-year old carob trees. This is because a legal notice dating back to 2008, exempts state bodies from seeking per- mits for the development of schemed roads, or rather... lines drawn on maps; in this case dating back to 1965 which were carried over in the local plan published in 2006. But while in some cases these works do follow the lines set out in plans (as in a similar case in Zabbar), in the Dingli case the map drawn on the lo- cal plan did not cross over the development zone boundary. It was only later in the absence of any public consultation, that the Planning Authority gave its "interpretation" by coming up with a new alignment pro- truding into the ODZ (outside development zone) boundary to ensure an 8-metre width for the new road, which is the min- imum width required by law. This suggests that as pro- posed in the local plan, the new road was not even feasible. And this may well be the reason why plans remained on paper and were never implemented. By redrawing the lines again, the PA was duly obliged to re-consult the public – but it did not. In this case the PA simply implemented what had been already decided by Infra- structure Malta. But even if one were to give the PA allowance in deviating from its own local plans for practical considerations, the invocation of a legal notice which exempts schemed roads from the planning process rais- es a number of questions. When old line drawings prevail One consideration to be made is that many schemed roads were simply carried over in the local plans from plans dating back to the 1960s, at a time when environmental awareness was at its infancy and when no public consultation took place. Moreover these schemed roads were a minor detail in- cluded in bulky local plans dealing with a vast variety of issues, which were approved after one single round of pub- lic consultation. The office of the Ombudsman had found this process defective. There- fore does it make sense to com- mence works on roads whose inclusion in local plan was more or less a formality? The reality is that residents are now waking up to unan- nounced roadworks only to be told to "shut up" because the lines had already been drawn before they had reached adult- hood... and in some cases even before they were born. An experienced planner in- volved in the local plan process had this to say when asked on the legality of the road works in Dingli: "If it is a schemed road, then the laying out of a road is permitted development, but this is subject to various pro- visos such as that the schemed extent of the road is not ex- ceeded." But as for the spirit of plan- ning, "if there were people with a shred of decency they would subject the development to an application process, given that it is undisturbed land and still in use for agriculture…. There are various issues involved and those issues can only be assessed and decided upon through a proper application process." One law for the Gods... Common citizens in Mal- ta still have to go through the formalities of the planning process for works carried out in their own home. Yet large- scale projects protruding into the ODZ are being exempted from such requirements. These requirements include the fixing of signs announcing the proposed works, the publi- cation of plans showing the full extent of works, the request of comments from environmen- tal and heritage authorities and public consultation. In contrast, IM commenced the works be- fore even concluding the expro- priation of private land in the area and without even publish- ing a plan showing the full ex- tent of road works. The setting of a medieval chapel According to a planning circu- lar issued last year, if a develop- ment is proposed in the vicinity of a scheduled building like the Santa Duminka chapel, the de- veloper will even have to submit photomontages and other stud- ies to assess the impact on the setting of the monument. But no such requirements are needed for roadworks next to the medieval chapel in Ding- li. In this case the chapel was only scheduled in October 2020 following the first protests by Moviment Graffitti – eight full years after the request for scheduling was made by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. Moreover the scheduling failed to identify a buffer zone around the chapel and to pro- tect the trees, which form part of the setting of the monu- ment. And since no planning application was submitted, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage never had a chance to express its views on the pro- posed roadworks. ERA becoming Ian Borg's lapdog? In the case of the scheme road buildling, the only permit re- quired was a nature permit for the uprooting of centenarian trees, duly issued by the Envi- ronment and Resources Au- thority. But here one has to take note of the testimony given in an appeals case presented by Moviment Graffitti, by Alfred Baldacchino, a former assis- tant director of ERA's precur- sor, the Environment Directo- rate in the Planning Authority; an expert who distinguished himself as an outspoken critic of former planning Minister George Pullicino. "If ERA was worth its mettle, and could un- derstand the ecological, eco- nomic, social, aesthetically and hydrological value of these car- ob trees it has endorsed for de- struction, it would have imme- diately issued a Tree Protection Order, and possibly declared a Tree Protection Area where they grow. Instead it issued a permit for their destruction," Baldachino said. For the law perfectly entitles ERA to protect 'trees or wood- land communities of scientific, ecological, aesthetic, historical, cultural, arboricultural, silvicul- tural, agricultural, educational or landscape interest' by issuing a tree protection order. This raises the question on why The official justification for a new road in Dingli is that it had been schemed in 1965 long before many residents were even born. But is this the way things should be done? asks JAMES DEBONO