Balluta Square is not the private property of the mayor of St Julian’s, so I find it unacceptable that he applied to build a ‘Green Urban Transport Terminal’ in it, without informing and consulting local residents. He has been operating by stealth on this project so that, by the time it was underway, it would be too late for residents to make their voice heard and be taken in consideration. Balluta Square is not the mayor’s front garden or back yard, so he has no right to be angry at those Balluta residents who have contacted me to share their concern about the impact of the transport terminal on their lovely square, as if I am an intruder and not their Member of Parliament.
Why is he worried about my involvement? What is he hiding? He is making residents suspicious and mistrustful by giving them contradictory information: saying that all the old oak trees giving the square its name are sick so it will not be a great loss if they are removed. Then he says only one tree is sick. First saying that the public has been informed about the project in an event held last summer in the garden behind Spinola Palace then promising to hold public consultation meetings once he has full development permission. How kind!
I have been representing St Julian’s in parliament since 1992 and I have tried to remain close to my constituents. As I do not operate out of an office, those who contact me frequently invite me into their homes to discuss whatever they want. Meeting the Balluta residents 10 days ago, I was accompanied by my good friend Louis Grech, the Maltese European Parliamentarian, who is checking whether European Union funds are going to be sought for this transport terminal.
Fifteen years ago, on 30 August 1994, the Planning Authority scheduled the following properties: the Monument and Fountain in Balluta Square, the Balluta Buildings in it-Telgha ta’ San Giljan, the Timber Kiosk in Balluta Square and all the open space of Balluta Square. According to the Development Planning Act (Article 46): “No works of any description shall be carried out in or on any scheduled property and no scheduled property shall be demolished, altered or extended except with the permission of the Authority granted on an application made to it and giving such details as the Authority may require or in accordance with the provisions of a conservation order; and for the purpose of this article, damage to or destruction of any part of a scheduled property shall be deemed to be a demolition thereof.”
The fact that in 1994 MEPA scheduled the entire area, spanning both sides of Balluta Bay, extending up to include the entire Pjazza, all its contents, all its immediate surrounding structures and buildings, it is clear that MEPA intended to preserve the nature of this entire area and surroundings. Given the fact that even in its Local Plan for St Julian’s in 2006 a bus terminus was neither included nor envisaged in this “scheduled area”, I find it hard to understand how MEPA can now try and justify building a bus terminus in the middle of this “well thought-out and planned scheduled area”.
This would significantly `alter` the area in question from an aesthetic point of view, not to mention the impact this would have on the only open space in this area. The pjazza will also be altered from a structural point of view, because once the site around the latrines and adjacent road is excavated the support for the foundations of the (man-made) pjazza will be removed, leading to the collapse of the rest of the adjacent road and pjazza. As such, the pjazza and its contents will be altered.
Both the pjazza and its adjacent road were reclaimed by man ‘many’ years ago. I have seen a photo taken in 1928 that clearly shows this. People who are involved in construction work have explained to me that this means that neither are supported by solid rock/natural foundation, but by ‘in-fill’; meaning that any alteration/excavation of the current boundaries (which were built specifically to support both the pjazza and adjacent road) will lead to the eventual crumbling of both the said structures. If you remove something that is keeping material in place the result will be the displacement of the said material outwards; hence the eventual collapse of the adjacent road and pjazza.
Whether the plan of action is ‘willful’ or ‘negligent’ is impossible to determine. But the information submitted to the MEPA is misleading and incorrect, and there is also an issue of public safety, given the fact that the entire pjazza and road would become unstable and could collapse at any given moment. In light of all these points, the application in question should therefore not be considered any further by MEPA in terms of article 39 of the Development Planning Act.
On Tripadvisor.com, a tourist describes Balluta Square as “very picturesque and a bit of an oasis away from the very busy promenade across the road. I fell in love with this place. There was always something going on that was quite appealing, whether it be kids playing around the fountain, students meeting up for a chat and a drink or locals out to enjoy the evening air. The Balluta Building is one of my favourite buildings on Malta – in fact probably my most favourite. It was built in the 1920s in Art Nouveau style and still looks wonderful.”
Two years ago a Sliema resident wrote a letter to this paper hoping to alert “the authorities concerned to the atrocities being approved by MEPA in Balluta Bay… Since my childhood years I remember going down to Balluta square through the street formerly known as Prince of Wales and I recall that I was always fascinated with how nice and different from the rest of Sliema this picturesque square looked. It reminded me of the history of Sliema and of its origins. However, throughout these last years MEPA has allowed the demolishing of crucial old buildings found in this bay, such as the old Lotto office and recently two houses adjacent to Villa Cassar Torreggiani. I have come to know that instead of these two houses MEPA has approved two buildings, eight-storey high. It is not very hard to conceive the horrendous impact which these buildings will have onto Balluta Square and the rest of the scheduled building within the area. Instead of protecting this picturesque square by stopping further development, one questions whether MEPA has been used as a tool to actually continue ruining our heritage.”
Will MEPA now seal the destruction of this area by allowing a transport terminal to be built in Balluta Square? It is being called a ‘Green Urban Transport Terminal’. Calling it ‘Green’ does not make it more palatable. It reminds me of the military habit of giving destructive missiles holy names to conceal their destructive and murderous nature.
Evarist Bartolo is a Labour MP and spokesperson on education
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
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
Balluta Square is not the mayor’s front garden or back yard, so he has no right to be angry at those Balluta residents who have contacted me to share their concern about the impact of the transport terminal on their lovely square, as if I am an intruder and not their Member of Parliament. 
