A 2005 study for the Transport Authority casts doubts on Austin Gatt’s claims
James Debono
A STUDY on the road that transport minister Austin Gatt wants to build behind the Ghadira nature reserve claims the bypass could have an unpredictable impact on wind currents in a way that “the expected regeneration of sand dunes will never occur” – pouring strong doubts on his claims that the erosion of the Ghadira beach demands the construction of a new road.
The scientific report, carried out by AIS consultants, was commissioned by the Transport Authority in 2005, and was rendered public this week by Alternattiva Demokratika, after it was given access to the report by MEPA.
While confirming government’s claims that the existing road in Mellieha prevents the replenishing of sand dunes which protect Ghadira beach, the study actually casts doubts on whether the construction of a viaduct bridge behind the nature reserve offers any solution to this problem.
The report says that the major disadvantage of upgrading the existing Ghadira road is that this will not stop the degradation of sand dunes.
But the complete removal of the road, and the construction of a bridge and a tunnel, could restore natural wind currents which deposit sand from the bay on the presently degraded sand dune, the report says.
However it goes on to add that “the proposed bridge structure, even though further behind the sand dunes, may have unpredictable effects,” which might inhibit the regeneration of sand dunes.
“Potentially this may cause the expected regeneration of sand dunes to never occur,” the report states.
It even claims that removing the road will increase human activity on the beach and “strict control will have to be exercised to protect the sand dunes from human activity.”
On the other hand, passing the road further inland has the advantage of “improving substantially the tourist package.”
The study also questions the wisdom of past decisions which altered the Ghadira landscape, describing the Tas-Sellum development as a “very negative contribution to the scenic qualities of the bay” and the two hotels at either end of the beach as “eyesores”.
The report adds there are no studies that show the extent of beach erosion in Ghadira, meaning it is “not possible to make accurate predictions of the effect of each different option on the Ghadira beach dynamics and the rehabilitation of the sand dunes.”
Three options
The report also states that MEPA had rejected the option of passing a tunnel through the garigue behind the Danish Village holiday complex, because the area in question is a special area of conservation.
The tunnel option is one of three proposals being considered by Gatt, all of which affect the special area of conservation at Ghadira, which subsequently earned Natura 2000 status, by passing behind Danish Village and the nature reserve.
The first option is to connect the road with a viaduct bridge overlooking the neighbouring nature reserve.
The second is to widen a country lane lying further to the north, and connect it to a viaduct bridge that would lead into the area presently occupied by boathouses. The third option is to pass a tunnel beneath the central garigue plateau behind the Danish village, connected to a viaduct bridge passing behind the nature reserve.
The Transport Authority’s study has also floated three options over the upgrading of the Ghadira road network.
The first was to upgrade the existing road and construct a roundabout north of the Hotel, and clear the part of the road passing in front of the hotel. BirdLife objected to this option in 2006, because it would have ripped through part of the nature reserve and even part of the Foresta 2000 afforestation site.
The second option was to add a 200m bridge, six metres high, to the existing road on that part which passes in front of the nature reserve. The third option was a 460m tunnel, as par of a 960m road running behind the Danish Village.
The 2005 study says the upgrading of the existing road is also the preferred option of French engineers BCEOM, hired by the government as consultants on the entire TEN-T (Trans-European Road) network.
The report says that ecologically, simply upgrading the existing road would have the least impact on existing habitats, while building a tunnel will intrude upon an undisturbed habitat and also cause loss of agricultural land.
The viaduct bridge would also cast an artificial shadow on existing habitats, even if less taxing on agricultural land.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
