NEWS | Wednesday, 11 March 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

James Debono
Labour MP Roderick Galdes is defending his vote in favour of a 40-apartment residential block inside Balzan’s village core of Balzan, claiming he was simply adhering to a previous decision of the Development Control Commission board in 2007.
Galdes, an employee at the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, is also Labour’s representative on the MEPA board.
Despite his sole vote in favour, the board rejected the project, whose developer is construction magnate Charles Polidano, on the grounds that it would have resulted in overdevelopment of Balzan’s open spaces, compromising the character and heritage of the urban conservation area of this traditional village.
Galdes’s vote also contrasted with the case officer’s recommendation to refuse the permit.
But the MP has defended his vote on technical considerations, despite his party’s reputation to criticise MEPA for accommodating developers like Polidano. His vote also comes in the wake of a warmer relationship between the new Labour leadership and the magnate: in September, leader Joseph Muscat marked his entry into Parliament by holding celebrations at none other than Polidano’s wine vaults in Safi. Clearly the construction mogul is certainly no longer the Opposition’s persona non grata.
“I only based my decision on technical considerations and my own conscience and I assume full responsibility for my decision,” Galdes said, saying he doesn’t vote according to who is behind the project.
“Although I was nominated on the MEPA board by the Opposition, I serve in my personal capacity. I only voted in favour on the basis of technical considerations. Nobody interfered in my decision.”
Galdes says that in 2007, the DCC – the same board that resigned en bloc after being reprimanded by the MEPA ombudsman for approving Polidano’s supermarket in Safi –had accepted the Balzan application in principle, after imposing a number of conditions which were then accepted in subsequent plans presented by the developer.
He quotes MEPA’s own directorate which noted the several improvements in the amended plans, such as that “the traditional garden was being preserved in its entirety” and that the scale of the development had been reduced.
“The reasons cited for refusing the project had been resolved in the amended plans submitted by the developer,” Galdes says.
He also claims that in the past years MEPA had approved many similar projects in Balzan and the rest of Malta. “These were not just limited to restoration, as in this case, but even in the demolition of buildings in urban conservation areas.”
Galdes claims the application was tailor-made according to the draft Central Malta local plan, quoting the DCC’s decision deeming the project to be in accordance with the plan.
But specifically, Policy CG09 of this local plan prohibits new dwelling units in characteristic gardens in the Attard, Lija and Balzan area. It states that MEPA will not consider any development or redevelopment creating new independent residential and non residential units, including garages, in these open space enclaves.
The DCC’s own controversial interpretation of this policy (having ignored it) would have set a precedent that would have allowed for the very development that the local plan precluded for such gardens in the Balzan, Lija, Birkirkara and Attard areas.
Ironically it was a MaltaToday probe – two weeks after the March election – which revealed that this controversial recommendation by the DCC board had then gone missing from the MEPA website.
But then in June 2008, the newly reformed DCC ignored the decision of its predecessor that claimed the development “compatible with the local plan”, and called on the new case officer to give a “clear interpretation of the policy” before taking any decision on this case.
Subsequently, the case was brought before MEPA’s supreme board, which took the final decision against the development.
The site was also subject to an enforcement action, since the back gardens had been cleared of all trees and part of the same building was demolished. The high garden walls were also breached to allow for the passage of heavy machinery.
MEPA’s own Heritage Advisory Committee said the application could not be favourably considered. Din L-Art Helwa also objected, claiming that at least one of the properties dates back to over 300 years ago and had been used by Grand Master De Rohan as his country residence.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

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.