Editorial

The decision by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to call for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) on the controversial Fort Cambridge development at Tigné is a triumph of common sense over bureaucratic bumbling. It is a belated recognition of public pressure in the face of a hitherto stubborn refusal by the planning authority to comply with the spirit - if not also the letter - of the EU's directive on environmental impact assessments.

The first question to be asked is why did it have to take so long - and, apparently, only after the intervention of the EU Commission - for justice, equity and a transparent exposure of the facts, in the form of an EIA, to be done. While it is too early to know what the outcome of the EIA will be, it can at least be said with confidence that the concerns which those living in Qui-si-Sana and Tigné have been expressing will at last be given a fair hearing.

In the circumstances, one cannot be blamed in thinking that a whiff of political expediency could have led to Mepa's change of tack on this issue. It is fortuitous that the European Commission's fast tracking of the legal proceedings against Malta over the case has come at a time when a general election is in the air and the government would have been well aware of the discontent engendered among the residents of Qui-si-Sana, and of Sliema more generally, about the impact of this development on the lives of hundreds living there. A cynic might see in this willingness to have an EIA at Fort Cambridge parallels with the welcome volte face over Ramla l-Hamra.

Despite the way in which Mepa opted to explain its change of heart, notwithstanding its - and the government's - declarations over the past months on the matter, the decision is nonetheless welcome even if many would insist that it has come about in an effort to appease Sliema voters whose patience with the government over this and other environmental issues has worn so thin.

In the EU, the EIA concept goes back well over 20 years. It is a most enlightened planning tool aimed at ensuring that decision-makers consider the impact of major developments before, not after, deciding whether to proceed with a new major project. It pins down in fairly precise terms the likely influence of a project on the environment through a comprehensive process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and, hopefully, mitigating the social, environmental, physical and infrastructural effects of development proposals.

In the case of Fort Cambridge, which was graphically described, together with the nearby Tigné Point, in a recent three-part series of articles in The Times on The Environmental Deficit as "monolithic, intrusive, high density footprint buildings, too massive in scale for their surroundings and imposing too much on the existing infrastructure and previously peaceful neighbourhoods", the issues which the EIA will have to address are many and varied. These include: the ability of the existing infrastructure to support such a large development, the impact on roads and traffic, the health and social consequences of air pollution and noise levels, the aesthetics of the structure and the overall effect on the neighbourhood and the (mostly elderly) inhabitants' quality of life.

Only in the light of this full exposure can a proper judgement be made both by the planning authority and, just as importantly, the public. The developers should also welcome this as the starting block for good environmental management of the project.