Objections to St Julian’s ferry begin racking up
Kevin Schembri Orland
A proposal for a berthing facility for a sea-based hop-on, hop-off maritime service in St Julian’s has begun to rack up a number of objections from members of the public, mainly due to the proposed location.
St Julian’s Local Council has taken a decision to object, which will be filed soon. Mayor Albert Buttigieg told this newsroom that the council has asked for an explanatory meeting with the applicant, but no acknowledgement has been received. It is pertinent to note that there is no indication of where such a ferry service will operate to.
Mayor Buttigieg, however, has already aired his views on Facebook. “St Julian’s cannot have another ‘ferries’ (referring to the Sliema Ferries area). Let us not be deluded into thinking there will ever be some form of enforcement of emissions/pollution from ferries. We will end up like Sliema Creek. There has never been any enforcement anywhere. Ferry transport is a good idea, but not in a bay which is one of the few remaining spots for swimming. The public is always losing out - this means the commercialization of the bay.”
A number of objections have already been filed with the Planning Authority, some arguing that while alternative and marine transport is commendable, “it is expected that there be realistic and wide public consultation on the appraisals of alternatives both in terms of location and impacts. “As it is, this application seeks to slide in a hugely intense operation of constant ferry service through the seemingly innocuous application for a berthing facility. This is not respectful of the public’s right to be informed and to the public’s continued and free enjoyment of a popular bathing spot - a right which is constantly being eroded by commercial applications.”
Objectors highlight that the proposal for the landing site for the hop-on, hop off ferry that will be placed on the bay will be right in the middle between the St Julian’s and Neptunes water polo pitches.
“It is a popular swimming and bathing spot. Both the infrastructure itself and any ferry will pose a danger to bathers and also cause pollution. The bay will end up like Sliema Creek. This is one of the very few remaining patches of sea and coastline which is open to the public for recreational purposes and which has not been commercialised,” a number of objectors highlight.
Some also highlight that the application is in breach of the local plan, which defines the site in question as a coastal area with leisure use, and thus that only certain uses can be permitted.
Some objectors argued that there is a possible presence of posidonia beds in the area. “An updated assessment of the Area of Influence and the potentially harmful effects on posidonia beds is required this should also take into account the cumulative effects of all developments on the bay.
“Moreover, the assessment should take into account the piecemeal, fragmented approach being adopted by developers with a small-scale berthing facility being proposed initially but which will naturally serve for a ferry travelling constantly through bathing waters with the resultant pollution and danger to bathers,” a number of objectors argued.
Speaking to this newsroom, an expert confirmed that the area is known to contain fragmented pockets of posidonia meadows, and experts speaking to this newsroom highlighted that if such meadows are present on the site of the application, they could be affected and destroyed. The experts noted that the EU considers such meadows to be priority habitats which need to be protected. The experts also noted that, while lying just outside the marine protected area, these concerns still need to be addressed through proper assessment.
Objectors also noted that there are no studies available as to how this application and its intended use will affect the seabed, water turbidity, and bathing water quality. In view of this, it is requested that the public consultation period is extended for these studies to be carried out and published for public information purposes. It should be noted that to date studies on bathing water quality by the Environmental Health Directorate have shown overall good bathing quality. But the possible contaminants and litter from berths and boats have also been pointed.”
Other issues highlighted by objectors included that the sea and the coast are public domain and any development requires a resolution of the House of Representatives. “This has not been done.”