The Prime Minister Dr Lawrence Gonzi recently announced that the Valletta Regeneration project will begin within months, if not weeks, “once the Malta Environment and Planning Authority gives its go-ahead.” Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) emphasises the choice of words “once the MEPA gives its go-ahead and not “if”, implying a pre-decided permit. This certainty is surprising since the project as presented violates a number of MEPA regulations.
On Wednesday 17th February, the MEPA Board set up ‘to ensure that the organisation fulfils its functions and responsibilities efficiently and effectively, in line with its legal obligations’ decided on the changes to the Valletta Local Plan necessitated by Government’s plans for City Gate, the Opera House and the bus terminus proposals.
We quote from Malta’s Structure Plan, which is legally binding since it was ratified by Parliament and was drawn up precisely to protect the Maltese Islands, including Valletta.
Policy Com 1: ‘A new Government administration centre will be developed outside Valletta to house most Government Departments, while Parliament itself and the Ministries will concentrate in the palaces and auberges of Valletta.’
There is only one way to interpret this statement – it is unequivocal. Parliament and Ministries must make use of the palaces and auberges in Valletta.
As reported in the media, the Mepa Case Officer reply to this was that “this is a restricted interpretation. What the policy actually states is that the ministries and Parliament must stay in the palaces and the auberges, not that every ministry must stay in an auberge. Even if Parliament is built at City Gate, policy COM 1 would still be valid. It is furthermore the applicant which must consider alternatives sites.”
Malta has only one Parliament and it is that Parliament which the Structure Plan directs to make use of existing palaces and auberges in Valletta. There is no other interpretation of the law in this regard. FAA therefore questions the MEPA Case Officer’s attempt to obfuscate this issue and challenges the decision taken by the MEPA Board.
The solutions for traffic and parking in Valletta were grouped under the need for “flexibility”, erroneously claiming that car parking problems have already been solved with the introduction of the CVA. The issue of access to Valletta once the road over City Gate is demolished has not been addressed and “must be studied” by means of a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). Surely the TIS should have been carried out and presented to the MEPA Board before a decision of such magnitude could be taken and certainly before works or demolition commence.
MEPA Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations include ‘cultural heritage’ as a requirement for an EIA, referring to “cultural heritage” as “monuments and groups of buildings or the spaces between them, or their immediate surroundings to be conserved because of their architectural character, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape”. As well as “sites … and areas … which are of value from the point of view of history, art, science, culture, aesthetics, ethnography, anthropology and includes also their surroundings”.
The Urban Conservation Area and World Heritage City status of Valletta dictate that all these issues should be resolved, at least by a limited EIA well before any decision on the project application is taken. Moreover the MEPA Board is expected to make an informed decision based on studies and assessments and not on the ‘free’ interpretation of its own regulations and the law.
The MEPA Board has the legal responsibility to protect Malta’s heritage and environment based on the legality of the application irrespective of who made the application or the presence of objectors at the hearing.
The application as presented also goes against a number of other MEPA regulations such as Structure Plan Policy BEN 2 and UCO 6. Yet, despite this, the MEPA Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) and now the MEPA Board incredibly saw absolutely nothing wrong with the Valletta Rehabilitation plans for the construction of the Parliament building, the style and the materials to be used. Moreover the HAC was totally silent on the regulations that the project violates. It is pertinent to note that the MEPA Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) includes two architects working for the private company that is handling the Valletta Project who also both occupy key posts on the Valletta Rehabilitation Committee. FAA expresses surprise that such a blatant conflict of interest has not been addressed by the authorities. In view of this conflict of interest, the silence of the HAC is of grave concern and should be explained. Worse still is the MEPA Board’s decision to overlook the need of an Environment Impact Assessment and interpret a Parliamentary law in a ‘free’ and ‘unrestricted’ manner.
It would appear that the system of checks and balances set up to protect and safeguard the Maltese Islands’ cultural heritage and Valletta’s World Heritage Status is being undermined, while laws can be given a ‘free’ and ‘unrestricted’ interpretation in particular circumstances. Given that an EIA is not intended to block a development but to establish the best possible project for all parties, FAA trusts that MEPA will not deny the public this possibility of improving the project by failing to observe its EIA regulations.