Fort Cambridge: The unspoken story

As various tall building projects all over Malta move into high gear, the media battle has begun, with each developer vying to woo potential investors. Money talks, and as of late it has talked volumes, with every glossy regaling us with a multistory feature, while full-page adverts fill the dailies.

But what of the less appealing truths that are left unspoken? One of the most keenly contested projects is that of Fort Cambridge, the ex-Holiday Inn site where the residents feel cheated by the fact that Mepa has removed the developers' obligation to carry out an environment impact assessment (EIA).

An EIA is a study of a project's impact on the area's geology, flora and fauna, traffic, air quality, social, cultural and heritage values, utility services, nuisance during construction, etc, in order to evaluate the best possible end result both for the project as well as the area. But an EIA takes time and costs money.

Those who studied the government's Fort Cambridge development brief, informing potential investors of what could be built on the site, were shocked to see a little paragraph stating that:

"The developer will be required to prepare a detailed project description statement which includes evaluation of likely impacts, in which case Mepa may waive the requirement to prepare an environmental planning statement for the development."

Such an indication that the dismissing of the EIA is a foregone conclusion is highly irregular and has not been made in previous project briefs. With the stroke of a pen it waives away the only form of guarantee that this major project will be handled properly, a guarantee that no amount of developers' reports can replace. In fact, at the Mepa hearing, members of Mepa's own board of directors maintained that the level of information provided by the developers was inadequate and, hence, the EIA could not be waived.

Waiving the EIA not only gives the Fort Cambridge developer an unfair advantage in significant savings over other similar projects, but also speeds up the processing of the permits and conclusion of the sale of the Holiday Inn, very important to both buyer and seller - which is Air Malta.

Such a waiver is permissible by Maltese law, though it is almost always reserved for much smaller projects like farm extensions. What was, however, ignored, is that this is an outright violation of the EU's EIA Directive:

"3. Without prejudice to article 7, member states may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this directive. In this event, the member states shall:

"... (c) inform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of the reasons justifying the exemption granted, and provide it with the information made available, where applicable, to their own nationals."

As we are fast learning, the EU does not take kindly to member states ignoring its directives, and this matter was discussed in the course of the Infringements Unit's recent visit to Malta, with the registration of an official infringement expected shortly.

One of the most controversial points raised at the Mepa hearing was that the government's brief for the area stated clearly: "1.7: This brief will be the basis for major investment decisions and therefore states the firm requirements for the sale". Among these conditions was the fact that the project was to include a hotel and a research educational establishment. Although the brief stated that the developer's statement "must comply with the requirements in the development brief", the approved outline permit makes no mention of either the hotel or the research unit.

Another violated condition is the provision that the buildings were supposed to be stepped down from 16 floors and not the present 23 floors. "As higher buildings than (16 floors) would adversely affect the historical low profile of the fort as well as the residential environment".

The project architects correctly stated that the floors were added in order to increase the open public space, however, if the project cannot satisfy the brief conditions in combining both the open space and the 16-floor limit, then the size or number of apartments should be reduced. It was argued at the Mepa board hearing that such broad departures from the brief constituted a grave injustice to other bidders who stuck to the brief, and, therefore, a re-issuing of the tender is called for in order to allow other developers the same opportunities as the present ones.

The project's architect also insisted that it would be impossible for the project's tower to be seen across the harbour from Vittoriosa. However the photograph (below) taken from Vittoriosa shows that the Fortina Tower (circled), which is on much lower ground and "only" 18 floors high, clearly intrudes on Valletta's protected skyline, let alone a 23-storey tower higher up on the peninsula. This is in violation of Mepa's regulations which stipulate that "Views of and from the urban conservation area should be protected", only in this case it is views of Valletta that are being ruined, further threatening its World Heritage status and undermining our island's appeal.

Confidence that the fortress would be impeccably restored was recently shaken when a few weeks ago work started in the ditch flanking Dragut Street, possibly an attempt to widen the road at the cost of the integrity of the ditch. One is also dismayed to see that the "landmark" Officers' Mess has not been scheduled in spite of its heritage and architectural value, and far from "sensitive minor alterations", as the law permits, the only obligation is to retain the façade.

The brief also highlights the area's congested transport situation and the need of a traffic impact statement (TIS). However, the TIS was based on outdated information and in no way reflects the present traffic situation especially as regards density and parking. There is no realistic estimate of air pollution in the side streets to be caused by additional traffic generated by the project. The TIS does not take into account the recent proposed changes in traffic flow around the peninsula.

It is no exaggeration to say that the transport situation is a nightmare. The development brief pre-supposed that most of the traffic would be absorbed by the Midi tunnel. However, the tunnel is now one way and a link to Fort Cambridge has now been dropped. In a move that was specifically vetoed by the brief, the Malta Transport Authority indicated that all traffic from the Ferries would be funnelled up the narrow, steep Censu Scerri Street into the narrower-still part of upper Tignè Street, a route guaranteed to cause gridlock and maximum emissions of toxic fumes.

Thus, in spite of evident determination to defend the case at all costs, the project is as yet far from being the dream development that it is being portrayed. Greed and over-development encouraged by a government wanting to make the most profit out of cashing in the family silver, has turned what could have been an extremely attractive and viable project to one fraught with problems. The inaccuracies and omissions of the government notice waiving the EIA mean that the process can be challenged at law with relative ease, a case that will be strengthened by an EU infringement procedure.

The moving of the tender goalposts is also open to being challenged. Most significantly, instead of enhancing the area, the poor traffic planning and excessive height will ensure that the project's damaging impact goes far beyond Sliema's shores. In betraying its basic remit to protect the quality of life and health of the Maltese people through such questionable practices, each member of the Mepa board is exposing himself to serious legal challenges. Let us stop the madness now, before it's too late.