Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/712794
14 IT'S never a dull moment, when you're committed to safeguarding the typical Maltese urban landscape (not to mention the entire natural environment) from speculative de- velopment. Ask Astrid Vella. The founder of Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar, she has spent the better part of the past 15 years attending endless consulta- tion meetings at MEPA, to resist an ever-increasing case-load of pend- ing applications. Last Wednesday, she emerged (defeated, at least for now) from an attempt to halt a con- troversial seven-storey development project in the heart of Hal Lija: one of Malta's most picturesque and un- spoilt villages. In what reads like the 'Chronicle of a Permit Foretold', this particular Planning Authority board meeting followed the same pattern of many previous ones. Despite numerous policies aimed at preventing such blatantly discordant architectural hiccups, the permit was once again given the green light. Does this cement the perception that the Planning Authority exists as a mere rubberstamping machine for speculative development? "In the case of yesterday's hearing, that was definitely true and clear from the outset," she replies without hesitation in her Sliema apartment. (I find it significant that she first had to close the window, to block out the deafening noise of a jackhammer across the road.) "Every argument put forward by the objectors was re- buffed, not by the developer, but by the chairman of the board. Through- out the meeting, the chairman spoke only in favour of the developer: mak- ing no attempt to hide an obvious bias." Is it just the chairman of the PA board who is biased, though… or is it the legislation and building guide- lines that supposedly govern the authority's decisions? At face value, what we seem to be looking at are two different perspectives on the same local plans. Vella, an environ- mentalist, looks at those plans and sees only policies to protect the ur- ban landscape… developers look at them, and see only what they can get away with building. Could it be that both perspectives are correct, but that it's the plans that are at fault? "There are undeniably issues with the local plans: two in particular that are relevant to this case. The first is that the policies all insist on protec- tion of characteristic towns and vil- lages. There is a raft of policies which state that. Conversely, however, the maps of the local plan do favour in- creased intensification of urbanisa- tion, as well as higher buildings. The chairman herself admitted [during the meeting] that she was going by the only document that favoured the developer, and ignoring all the other policies. She said that herself. Now, I raised the issue that the policies very often contradict what is said in the plans… and very often there is contradiction between the plans themselves, as shown in the Wied il- Ghasel case. And we know, because this was communicated to us by a MEPA official, that the local plans were tweaked by Minister George Pullicino in 2006. The minister has the legal right to make changes to environmental laws and policies; and there were widespread changes to the plans, which accounts for why the plans contradict the policies. What sort of changes? "I will go as far as to say that, when changes were made to urban con- servation zones – the most sensi- tive area – we could trace those changes to projects whose sites were all changed in favour of the develop- ment. This happened consistently. There is a clear paper trail of changes to the local plans favouring devel- opment at the expense of the urban streetscape…" At the same time, we are talking about decisions taken in 2006. That's 10 years ago, and there has obvi- ously been a change in government since then. Yet the construction and development drive seems to have ploughed on regardless… "The drive has increased," she points out sharply. "This is why I strongly rebut any claim that we [FAA] had in any way supported Jo- seph Muscat. The writing was on the wall, and you had to be blind not to see it. I said this during a TV debate before the election. Usually we have a policy to keep a low profile at elec- tion time; but we broke that policy because we saw what was coming. In that debate I made a very strong attack on Labour's lack of plans and vision for the environment…" The point I was coming to, howev- er, is that we seem to be condemned from both sides to a policy of con- stantly offering up more and more land to development. Civil society has been vociferous in its opposition; people have protested, sometimes in unusually large numbers about this sort of thing… yet there has been no difference; actually, as Vella herself put it, things have got worse. Are people beginning to give up? She shakes her head. "No, things might really change now, because the public outcry is now going across the board. People are no longer taken in by political brainwashing. They no longer believe the old mantra that 'the Maltese economy depends on development'. It has finally been de- bunked. We've been saying this for years, and the message has sunk in. Tourism employs over 55,000 peo- ple. Development employs around 11,000…" On paper, that may be true; but there are other ways in which de- velopment can be seen an economic motor. For better or worse, the Mal- tese public still has faith in the de- velopment sector as an investment. Local investors are willing to invest in property… and this is what fuels the construction boom… "Sadly, that is true. It is a very deep- rooted belief. But we have been ap- proached by estate agencies (includ- ing some of the most established and prestigious ones) who are worried by this sudden spate of high-rise devel- opment, because they feel – as does the Minister for the Economy, and Labour MP Charles Buhagiar, among others – that this boom carries the seeds of its own destruction. Since property development is a major ve- hicle for investment, the implications of over-development, and the bubble bursting, go beyond developers and speculators. That is the worry of es- tate agents: everyone will be affected across the board. Malta has one of the highest percentages in Europe of property ownership. Then there's the issue raised by the IMF, the EU and the Maltese central bank of the danger of the banks' over-reliance on the development sector…" That is however another area where Maltese public faith is strong. The local banking sector is viewed as a lot more prudent and cautious, when investing in construction pro- jects, than other jurisdictions. It is certainly harder to get a loan in Malta, than in other less financially conservative countries. "It's hard to get a loan from some banks, but not others. The Central Bank two years ago already reported that defaulting loans had gone up from 4% to around 8%, and it was clearly spelt out in the report that the difference was exclusively made up of unrecovered loans in the devel- opment sector. Not the domestic or industrial sectors…." Nor is it just the banks that some- times seem willing to invest in unvi- able projects, she adds. "This same laissez-faire attitude gives birth to projects like the A4 towers facing the Addolorata, which is one of Malta's high-rise fiascos: a vertical corpse which the public is now bailing out from its taxes. Transport Malta's de- cision to rent office space from the A4 towers, instead of using any of the masses of public properties that lie vacant, is a burden on the public. Is she suggesting the decision was taken to bail out the developers? "It had that effect. By renting out office space, Transport Malta is uti- lising the empty space created by the rash move on the part of the Monte- bello brothers: who went for an out- size project that was clearly beyond their capabilities. Who is left to carry the can? The public, out of its taxes. And out of four recent high-rise pro- jects – Portomaso, A4 towers, Me- tropolis, and Mistra Towers – three have been utter fiascos. Only one [Portomaso] was a success. So how can we possibly contemplate that the market will find its own level, in the face of this track record? We have to be ultra-sure what we're going into, because of the implications on every level. Not just environmental, but also social." Speaking of the impact, FAA has long complained that Malta was contemplating high-rise develop- ment without giving due considera- tion to the infrastructural and logis- tical implications… "It's not just what FAA says. It's what the experts think, too. We were involved in the report by the high- rise expert brought over by MEPA from Chicago. He came here full of hopes that high-rise would be the so- lution to all Malta's planning issues. He left very emphatically insisting that Malta is not ready for high-rise. High-rise should not be considered until a number of things have been set right: primarily, the infrastruc- ture. He was adamant that the suc- cess of a high-rise building relies on efficient mass-transit. That is obvi- ously not available in Malta. Not even our bus system is efficient, let alone mass transport systems. That means everybody will continue to come into and leave the area using their own vehicles. In Sliema, the whole area would just grind to a halt…" Apart from traffic, there are other issues simmering (literally) below the surface. "People are increasingly starting to think about sewage, along with water and electricity. One person I know famously said: 'where I see cranes, I think drains'. It is not just the increase in the number of people residing on the same footprint; it is also the commercial uses that inten- sify the pressure on local infrastruc- ture. When you replace one typical townhouse, which has a maximum of six occupants, with an office block employing 50… just compare the pressure on the drains. "Hotels likewise consume much more water and electricity than other structures. The very concept of high-rise itself, which is touted as 'environmentally sustainable', is now being questioned by a UN report: the higher you build, the more ex- posed you are to sun and wind, heat and cold; and therefore the more dependent on artificial heating and cooling. Tall buildings are enormous Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 17 JULY 2016 People are increasingly starting to think about sewage, along with water and electricity. One person I know famously said: 'where I see cranes, I think drains' INFRASTRUCTURE 'See cranes, think drains' BUILDING BOOM We have been approached by estate agencies who are worried by this sudden spate of high-rise development, because they feel that this boom carries the seeds of its own destruction