![]() |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MISTRA
HIGH-RISE PROJECT VIOLATES KEY MEPA, EU & SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Flimkien
għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) welcomes the appointment of a new MEPA
Chairman and augurs that the speedy implementation of MEPA reform will
enable the new Chairman to ensure a level playing field for both
developers and residents, consistency in decisions and sustainable
planning for Malta’s future needs. FAA
fails to understand how a decision as important as the Mistra high-rise
development could have been taken just prior to the takeover of the new
Chairman, and to the imminent MEPA reform. The decision to allow the
building of high-rise blocks on the Mistra ridge violates not only the
Local Plan, but also the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) eight-floor limit for the
area as well as the regulation which stipulates that “Settlements on
elevated ground and on ridges are inappropriate locations for tall
buildings, as tall buildings in these locations would be more pronounced,
would have a deleterious impact on the skyline on a national scale and
would dominate the whole landscape when viewed from low lying
ground;”(FAR Policy, 7.Locating Tall Buildings) The
approval ignored the advice of MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Committee as it
also places at risk the area’s heritage which includes archaeological
sites and the unique and endangered Underground Flour Mill. The MEPA
Board took the decision without being shown the latest plans’ impact on
the landscape in photomontages, the most important aspect of the project.
On the grounds of these violations, FAA questions not only the wisdom, but
even the legality of the MEPA board’s decision to allow a further 868
apartments in an area which already has over 1,000 vacant housing units.
Furthermore, the Halcrow and TEN-T transport report already state
that the Xemxija bypass cannot cope with present traffic demands, let
alone the increased traffic that this development will create. The
building of a Pwales bypass which has already been investigated and
dropped in the past, would be equally unsustainable, given the
encroachment of agricultural land, the threat to the aquifer as well as to
the Ghadira bird sanctuary and Area of Special Conservation which includes
marshland and sand dunes. MEPA’s
argument that a traditional development of the site would have created
more units is an insult to the intelligence of the Maltese public.
Malta cannot afford to continue ignoring basic planning parameters such as
population densities, supply of vacant housing, EU Energy Efficiency
Directives and the state of transport facilities in favour of
short-sighted, fast-buck decisions. Our country boasts of having been in the forefront of highlighting environmental issues twenty years ago and now approves permits which violate the principles of the Sustainability Strategy for the Maltese Islands which was recently ratified by Parliament. This not only threatens the health and quality of life of its residents, but also the livelihood of tourism employees, which stands to be affected when the impact of what have been described as “massive and ugly developments” on our landscapes begins to be felt. The news that thirteen tall buildings have been applied for all over Malta at a time when even top planning officials are expressing serious doubts as to the wisdom of such structures in the Maltese context, makes a re-assessment of the Mistra decision and the whole tall buildings policy a national priority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||