In our previous article published last week we showed, black on white, how the Environment Resources Authority and the Planning Authority rode roughshod over other government departments and deceived Santa Luċija residents and the public to get the necessary permits for the Santa Luċija road project entailing the uprooting of 800 mature trees. Some of the trees are even protected by the law binding on the Environment and Resources Authority.

This article will give further factual insight into the machinations wrought by the underlings of ministers Jose Herrera and Ian Borg to obtain the necessary planning permit. Reading the correspondence between the Planning Authority and ERA, it is crystal clear that ERA was eager to be used as the pawn in PA’s hands.

According to a Consultation Reply dated August 22, 2018, ERA stated that: “This proposal is considered as part of a whole network in line with the Marsa-Paola junction and the proposed underpass at St Lucija/Tarxien (PA 9084/17). In PA 9084/17, ERA requested the submission of a Project Description Statement (PDS) in view that the proposal falls under Category II, Section 2.1.2.1 (Construction, excavation or realignment of roads, tunnels, viaducts or bridges, not covered by Category I, if located ODZ or at the edge of the Development Zone. In this regard, in this current planning application, the architect/applicant is requested to provide an update to the said PDS to include details related to this application.”

This means that the only information requested by the ERA was an update of the original Project Description Statement submitted in PA/9084/17, which is the permit application which was already approved for the Santa Luċija Underpass.

Borg’s PA couldn’t allow itself to be outshone by the ERA.

Some statements made by PA not factually correct

Thus, upon analysing the Development Permit Application Report, one notices that some statements made by the PA were not factually correct, thus leading to a recommendation to grant. Had the Development Permit Application Report been correctly drawn up, it would have led to a recommendation to refuse the permit application. Some examples of misguiding statements made by the PA include the following:

Under section 4.8.5, Pedestrian Accessibility, the PA stated that:

(a) ‘In addition to this, a jogging track will be introduced within the landscaped area between Triq Tal-Barrani and the Santa Lucija Housing Blocks’.

This statement is totally misleading. The truth is that an existing jogging track is going to be removed and then re-constructed in the (much smaller) remaining area between the housing block and Tal-Barrani Road.

Needless to state that the PA did not make any reference to the fact that the existing recently inaugurated jogging track, with a platoon of ministers in tow, which cost the Maltese taxpayer in the region of €100,000, is going to be erased from memory.

(b) Under section 4.7.3, Ground disturbance, the Planning Authority stated that:

“Numerous archaeological remains lie in close proximity to the stretch of road subject to this application. Following consultation carried out with the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the said entity expressed concern on the archaeological sensitivity of the area and recommended an archaeological evaluation is carried out. The applicant carried out a geo-radar survey, the results of which were communicated directly to the SCH, which showed that ‘there are no voids from 3 metres to 10 metres’ along the route of the proposed works.

“From 0 metres to 3 metres there are underground services. However the Superintendence is not yet in an ideal position to give direction for deviation as might be necessary, nor to make the recommendations for redesign, as would be the usual procedure to ensure the safeguard of the archaeological remains. Nevertheless, in view of the importance and urgency of the project, the Superintendence does not object in principle to the proposed works, subject to monitoring conditions.”

This latter statement is a lie.

Not only did the SCH object to the proposed works, but in correspondence dated September 19, 2018 after the issue of the permit, it stated that that the permit was issued by the PA without further consultation with the Superintendence: “The Superintendence notes that this permit has in fact been approved and that the response of the Superintendence at doc 86a has been attached to the permit as a supporting document. The concerns and recommendations expressed by the Superintendence at doc 86a remain valid.”

Had the recommendations by the SCH been correctly interpreted by the Planning Authority, they would have led to a recommendation to refuse this permit application.

(c) Under section 4.9, Communication with Architect/Applicant, the Planning Authority stated that:

“The architect was requested to address the issues raised by the DAC, SCH and ERA. All issues have been addressed.”

This statement is also totally misleading in view of the fact that the applicant did not submit the necessary information as requested by the Superintendence. In fact, the SCH felt the need to submit additional information after the issue of the permit, indicating that the information requested by themselves had not been submitted.

The Santa Luċija planning process stinks to high heaven with the deceit and abdication of duties by Minister Herrera’s ERA and Minister Borg’s Planning Authority.

Does anyone remember Joseph Muscat promising accountability?

Jason Azzopardi, Toni Bezzina and Marthese Portelli are Opposition spokespersons for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Green Initiatives; Transport and Infrastructure; and Capital Projects, Planning and Property Market, respectively.