|
By James Debono
Ghadira Bay, the most popular sandy beach for working class families, may have part of it sectioned off if a company co-owned by the General Workers Union gets it way. The GWU-owned company wants to privatise part of Ghadira Bay by applying for a beach concession to cater exclusively for paying clients.
GWU general secretary Tony Zarb, one of the directors of Mellieha Holiday Centre Company Ltd, of which the GWU is a shareholder, would not comment when asked where he expects his members to swim now that the General Workers Union wants to annex a chunk of Malta’s most popular beach.
The company behind the project is co-owned by the Danish DFF Malta Holiday Limited and the General Workers Union.
The proposed beach concession covers a small stretch of garigue, sand and rocks situated between the first beach opposite the Seabank Hotel, and the larger beach opposite the bird sanctuary.
This is a second consecutive blow to the environmental and working class credentials of the GWU, whose president Saviour Sammut marched alongside environmentalists protesting against the rape of Ramla l-Hamra in Gozo after MEPA approved 23 villas overlooking the bay.
The Wednesday edition of MaltaToday revealed that the GWU had lobbied with the Prime Minister’s office to hasten the approval of an application for 30 bungalows in a Special Area of Conservation. MEPA approved the outline permit for this development without any fanfare a few days before approving the controversial Ramla l-Hamra development.
It now transpires that the same union which joined a public demonstration against the Ulysses Lodge development, is a shareholder in a company which wants to privatise a part of Ghadira beach.
The proposed beach concession was twice rejected by MEPA because it would hinder public access to the coastline – a principle enshrined in Malta’s Structure Plan. It also referred to the presence of two cart-ruts in the area. But despite the refusals, the company has persisted in its attempts to appropriate the beach by appealing against MEPA’s decision and by presenting yet another application in 2006.
Contacted by MaltaToday on Thursday, and asked directly whether he agrees with the proposed beach concession, Tony Zarb insisted that he had nothing to add to comments by GWU president Saviour Sammut, published in MaltaToday last Wednesday. Sammut was never asked about the proposed beach concession.
“The story is already out. I have nothing to add to what Saviour Sammut told you,” Zarb told MaltaToday.
Sammut acknowledged talking to a government official about MEPA’s delays in approving the permit for the 30 bungalows. Sammut said he saw no contradiction in protesting against the 23 villas in Ramla l-Hamra while lobbying for the approval of 30 bungalows in Ghadira, insisting that Ramla l-Hamra had a greater historical value.
When pressed by MaltaToday on the beach concession issue, Zarb asked MaltaToday whether it had ever investigated beach concessions in the same locality. In fact MaltaToday has been at the forefront on investigating beach concessions including those at Ghadira Bay.
Ironically, the GWU’s application comes at a time when the government has finally taken steps to prevent existing concessions from occupying the whole beach with their sun beds.
The first application for the proposed beach concession was rejected by MEPA in December 2001. The application proposed the building of stores, toilets, a snack bar and decks for sunbathing. Another application presented in 2002 proposed the building of a kiosk, sunbathing decks, showers and a jetty, occupying 3,000 square metres of land. The application was rejected in September 2004 but an appeal against MEPA’s refusal is currently being heard by the Plannings Appeals Board. In February 2006, a brand new application for a beach concession in the same area was presented by architect Edwin Mintoff. This application is still being considered by MEPA.
The case officer’s report on the second application which is currently being considered by the Planning Appeal Board, states that the development would result in the destruction of a pair of 100-metre curt-ruts. It also states that the proposed jetty is not acceptable as it will introduce a new safety risk for swimmers and will alter the coastline, thus potentially affecting the hydrodynamics of the beach.
|
