EC’s rationalisation probe ‘unaware’ of Smart City
Brussels rested on government’s information that Smart City was ‘negligible in size’ and that it was ‘not aware of specific sites’
James Debono The European Commission was unaware that the land earmarked for Smart City had been included in government’s massive extension of building areas in 2006, and ignored this factor in its three-year probe into whether the government was in breach of EU laws.
The Commission appears to have closed its investigation into the so-called “rationalisation” of building zones, basing itself on information from the government that the addition of Smart City was “negligible in size”.
Smart City was included in last-minute additions by parliament’s development committee, along with other parcels of land, altogether totalling an area of 356,000m2.
These additions pushed the area of the new building zones from 2.3% to 3% of the total development zone, but it is unclear whether the Commission factored in these additions in its investigation.
A Commission spokesperson told MaltaToday when asked about these additions, that the EC “was not aware of the specific sites concerned by the Parliamentary amendments, and it understands from information received from the Maltese government that these amendments were negligible in size.”
The statement appears to confirm shortcomings in the EC’s three-year investigation into whether the Maltese government should have carried out a ‘strategic impact assessment’ as required by the SEA Directive, before increasing building zones. The Commission’s probe found no breach of EU law.
The Commission appears to have accepted the government’s argument against carrying out the impact assessment: that the increase in building zones was a continuation of the local plan process – the policies that regulate development – a process that started before EU laws were transposed into national legislation in 2004.
Thanks to a two-year breathing space, the SEA directive exempted any national plans commenced before 21 July 2004 and concluded before 21 July 2006.
This means that even those lands included after 2004, such as Smart City and the areas added at the eleventh hour in parliament, could be considered in the words of the Commission spokesperson as “one and the same thing” with the local plan process.
Environmentalists and critics of this line of reasoning argued that Smart City, which was first mentioned in 2005, could not have been contemplated before 21 July 2004 – so the additions made in parliament were never subjected to any public scrutiny.
Other shortcomings It is also evident that changes to the Grand Harbour local plan carried out in October 2006, which were necessary to get the go-ahead on Smart City, were not given consideration by the European Commission in its probe.
The Commission had told MaltaToday back in 2006 that the new policy changes to the Grand Harbour local plan would be added to the information they were assessing on the rationalisation investigation, and would “look to raise it directly with the Maltese authorities in due course.”
It turns out – according to its spokesperson – that the Commission never received “any formal complaint” about the changes to this local plan, ignoring the fact that this issue had already been raised by MaltaToday.
When asked whether these policy changes also warranted a strategic impact assessment, the spokesperson insisted that the issue was not raised in its investigation, “the scope of which was solely to investigate the procedures followed by the Maltese authorities in relation to the extension of development boundaries”.
The spokesperson did however note that the changes “may constitute a modification to a plan in terms of the SEA Directive.”
The changes to the Grand Harbour plan were proposed to pave the way for Smart City’s development. While Smart City was subjected to an environment impact assessment in 2008, the new criteria for its approval (the amended local plan itself) were not. These included building a new road over agricultural land starting at Bieb is-Sultan in Zabbar; and relocating the Wied Ghammieq sewage treatment plant to Xghajra.
The SEA Directive explained
A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is required by EU law to be carried out even on modifications to plans as required for new plans – a clear indication that amendments to approved local plans also fall under the scope of the directive.
Back in 2006 the Malta and Environment Planning Authority claimed that the substantial amendments to the Grand Harbour Local Plan did not require a SEA because the area affected was too small and the environmental impacts were not considered significant.
The EU guidelines on the SEA Directive state that it is “logical to consider that a modification of a plan or programme during its preparation must be subject to assessment if the modification in itself involves significant environmental effects not yet assessed.”
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
