Roposed ITS site wider context

pool and Manchester was seen to be the way forward following the financial turmoil of 2008. A number of major developments across the two cities were actively promoted by government and city politicians. The target was buyers from Asia who wished to invest in property in the UK. Many of these development have stalled leaving the cities scarred with abandoned building sites and a trail of angry investors from around the world. It seems that the financial model being adopted for the ITS development is the same – funding the development from deposits made by buyers. There is no suggestion that there is anything inappropriate in this approach but the fact remains that there is the risk that things can go wrong. If it happened in two major cities in the UK, it can also happen in Malta. One leading estate agent (MT, 23 June 2016) warned that the property bubble can burst if there is insufficient demand for thousands of properties being proposed in high-rise towers. His main concern is that the demand is not there at present for the larger part of the nine high-rise earmarked for the St Julian’s and Sliema area. He argues that unless Malta taps the international demand that exists for such property developments, the towers will simply result in an oversupply of properties. He calls for heavy investment to attract prospective buyers, by marketing the Malta brand abroad and improving surrounding infrastructure. It seems that his warnings are being ignored while the developers and the government bulldoze ahead with this disproportionately large development. It is us the public who will have to bear the brunt if the development is approved and then significantly delayed, or worse, if it is abandoned. We will have to put up with a big hole in the ground for many years or even decades. Worse still, if the project goes wrong when the construction is well underway, we will have a massive, hugely ugly, shell building overshadowing St George’s Bay. When deciding on the development application, the Planning Authority must factor in this risk in its considerations. In Malta, we have examples of major developments that have been stalled. Whatever the reason for the delay, the environmental and visual impacts are significant. One example that comes to mind is the Metropolis in Gzira. This has remained a big hole in the ground in spite of the inauguration by the Prime Minister in 2014 and in spite of assurances by the site owners that the development will be taken in hand the earliest possible. Another example is the former Jerma Hotel which closed in 2007. Eleven years later the abandoned building has become a huge eyesore along the Marsascala promenade, in spite of various plans by the owners to develop the site. Disrespect to Pembroke residents and to the wider public In last Wednesday’s protest on the project, the first speaker highlighted the developers lack of respect towards the residents, and I would also add the lack of respect to the wider public. The project was presented as a fait accompli many months ago in sections of the media. There was no attempt to seriously consult with the public, with interested stakeholders and with the residents. Everyone was ignored and the luxury apartments, as yet not covered by a permit, are promoted for sale with a commitment that they will be ready in 2020. The developers and government were disrespectful to the 750 students and staff of the Institute for Tourism Studies who were unceremoniously uprooted and relocated before the permit was issued. What happens if the application is refused? Will students and staff have been greatly inconvenienced in vain? Or are the developers so sure they will get the permit? The developers are also disrespectful to the Planning Authority as they have taken it for granted that the permit will be issued and that it will be issued in the way they have applied for it. When they realized that residents would not stand idly by while the development gets the go-ahead, the developers hurriedly organised a meeting for residents. It was the vociferous objections that made the developers realise that residents exist. The disrespect was also evident in the meeting held on 14 May. The developers believed that by promising a few goodies they would win the residents over. They promised a tunnel and a grade-separated junction to St Andrews Road but they know very well that these will not happen, in part because the cost would be astronomical. The developers promised a green travel plan. If the developers show the same commitment to the green travel plan as they did to consultation, then it is guaranteed that the green travel plan will never happen. Even if implemented, it will barely scratch the surface considering the extent of traffic congestion in the area and the way this will increase because of the development. The developers showed a photo montage of the ‘greenery’. They did not say, however, that half the trees shown in the picture already exist in Pembroke Gardens while the other half are not likely to be planted because it would take away space from the surface car park of the development. Apart from having several inaccuracies, the design statement prepared by the architects compares the residential tower to a “green waterfall” and the hotel to a building “cascading down in steps resembling a hanging garden”. Even the name given to the development – City Centre – is misleading because that part of St George’s is definitely not the centre of any city. All this misinformation borders on being offensive to the residents and to the wider public. In the meeting with the residents, the developers repeated several times that everything