AUM, an exercise in obstruction

“

It concludes that through the 326 trips generated by the project, the junction will under-perform further.

The AUM Campus in Bormla is in the process of expanding. The application concerning this proposed extension is expected to be decided by the Planning Authority this coming September.

Tara Cassar is an architect focusing on planning policies and environmental issues related to land-use, active with a number of local eNGOs tara.cassar@gmail.com

If approved, the extension would see the historic Dock 1 Knights’ Building redeveloped, with the construction of additional floor as well as a further addition extending onto the adjacent existing open space just below the Macina. Part of the public open staircase between the Knights’ Building and the already developed campus building, will also be built over, and replaced with an administrative block. The proposal also includes a new 5-storey block (referred to as Building C) instead of the open space along Triq San Pawl, just below the entrance to Isla. The site, previously used as a car park, is now being proposed as a student dorm with 120 bedrooms.

It is evident from the photomontages submitted that the proposed Building C would obstruct the historic bastion views of Fort St Michael and impede on the distinct Senglea Gate entryway, together forming the backdrop of this visually sensitive site. Such a disruptive visual impact within the confines of these fortified cities is unprecedented.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage [SCH] and the Design Advisory Committee [DAC], as official consultees to the proposal, agreed that Building C is in fact ‘too high’ and will have ‘a negative impact on the skyline’. The DAC called for the ‘proposed design to be revisited so that the skyline and the existing historical buildings, and the context

are respected’.

The Planning Directorate also acknowledged that Building C would ‘not positively contribute to the overall visual aspect of the whole complex’ and ‘would not maintain the visual integrity of the historic townscape of the waterfront dock and entrance to Senglea’.

However, instead of addressing such a pressing issue at the ‘master plan’ stage (as it is being described) the Planning Directorate effectively resumes responsibility by recommending that ‘the massing, height and architectural treatment of Building C’ is treated under a separate planning application.

The AUM Bormla project has already been split into a number of planning applications with the main block, its further extension over the ex-Bormla police station, and this proposal, all having been processed separately. Now, the Planning Authority is itself proposing the further compartmentalisation of the project, and effectively encouraging isolating the most pertinent issues and precluding assessment of the prospective development’s overall impact.

The application cannot be described as a ‘master plan’ when it fails to address the more complex and potentially damaging aspects of the project at this decisive stage.

Another issue being swept aside is the impact caused by traffic generated from the project. The Transport Planning Unit stated that from the Traffic Impact Assessment carried out it was evident that most assessed junctions already ‘fail under the current conditions’. It concludes that through the 326 trips generated by the project, the junction will under-perform further.

The assessment also notes a severe shortfall in parking spaces since although the development would create the need for 720 parking spaces, only 220 are being provided.

Despite this severe parking shortfall and the failure of several junctions, the application is still being considered favourably. The justification for this is that since most students will be foreign it is being assumed that they would not use private cars therefore the proposed Green Travel Plan should be enough to address prospective negative impacts.

A Green Travel Plan has yet to be proven to have even been partially effective in mitigating traffic issues related to large scale projects in Malta, even when the assumption of users shifting to alternative modes of transport was as low as 30%. We now have a project being recommended for approval on the assumption that around 85% of students would not use private vehicles, simply because they are foreign. Isn’t this university expected to cater for wealthy students from the Gulf, where transport infrastructure is also highly dependent on private cars? What research has been carried out to conclude that these students won’t be car-dependent when living in Malta too? And even if they did use public transport, how can it be presumed that the current infrastructure can handle the increased load when no actual measures are being implemented by the applicant to accommodate it?

The AUM expansion over the Dock 1 area as proposed will push the public out of their own town centre, threaten the heritage integrity of historic bastions and put an unnecessary and unfair strain on local infrastructure by not providing adequate services to handle the increased demand it is creating.

Without addressing these major flaws of the project at this stage, the application is not a master plan, but a half-baked proposal that expects the public to bear the brunt of an unsustainable private development.