  |
Questions about Eastside project
|
The Progressive Democratic Party note that the developers of the Eastside project have finally submitted another outline planning application in respect of the project. This project was first announced in 2003 and the developers are still at the planning stages with intentions that raise serious questions to be addressed. There are also significant environmental matters to resolve. The latter will be the subject of a separate press release.
In a press release in January 2005 the Government re-launched the project and announced the details of an agreement it had negotiated. This was to consist of:
? up to 2200 apartments, as well as a further 200 ?affordable homes?,
? a 300 boat marina, and a boutique cruise liner terminal,
? a 300 bedroom four star hotel,
? retail, commercial and office space,
? a new generating station, new sewer pumping station and ancillaries,
? the ?Beaches Project? as set out in the GSDs 2003 election manifesto, and
? two 250 space public car parks at Eastern Beach and Catalan Bay.
The 2007 planning application, as made available for public inspection, does not illustrate certain key aspects of the package announced in 2005. The PDP urgeGovernment to clarify whether it has now re-negotiated the original package and to be open about the new terms. The main questions that need clarification are:
WHERE ARE THE SO-CALLED ?AFFORDABLE? HOUSES?
The original 2200 homes have now been increased to 3000 homes. Presumably this results in larger profits for the developers which must surely increase the premium being paid to the Government. This should be confirmed. In 2005 the commitment was to build 200 so-called affordable homes ?off-site? within 30 months. Has that site been identified? Is that commitment still there? Given that the developer is obtaining 800 additional apartments, surely more than 200 affordable homes can be provided by the developer?
WHERE ARE THE HEIGHT PROTOCOLS?
The PDP support the use of reclaimed land for higher buildings but the Gibraltar Development Plan needs to be clear about the maximum permissible heights of buildings in different areas. The proposals include seven buildings of over 80 metres high. The highest of those is 139 metres or nearly three times the height of the ?tower blocks? at Glacis Estate, creating a skyline more familiar to Hong Kong than Gibraltar. It will certainly destroy the traditional feel of Catalan Bay. Buildings of those height levels seem well in excess of what would be appropriate.
If skyscraper development is what the Government support, then presumably it will also address the ancillary safety issues that arise. For example is our City Fire Brigade adequately resourced, trained and prepared to deal with possible emergencies within such high buildings?
WHERE ARE THE PLANNING GAINS?
The application as submitted does not seem to include the promised new generating station, or the cruise liner terminal. Furthermore, it is not apparent whether there is provision for the new sewer pumping station either. The Boat Marina is now earmarked as ?Phase 2? and is not included in this application. What conditions or safeguards is Government planning to impose on the developer to actually build this second phase? If and when this marina is built, will the berths be available to all Gibraltar residents?
Another element that has apparently been sidelined is the Government?s ?Beaches Project? as set out in the GSD 2003 Manifesto. The originally announced two public car parking facilities, has been cut down to just the one near Catalan Bay, while on the Eastern Beach side, the car park shown has been clearly labelled ?BY OTHERS? ? does this mean the Government will now have to foot the bill for the second car park?
In the past, local developers have argued that high-rise buildings allow for more green open areas to be provided. Even more crucial is that the resultant green, open spaces below are accessible to the general public and do not become exclusive, ?no go? areas. There are various outdoor amenities shown throughout the development, such as a cycle / pedestrian route, and a ?lagoon area?, but it is not clear which areas will be public and which amenities will be private.
It is important that Government should address all these questions. What the developer can or cannot do will depend on the terms it has now agreed with Government and the developer should not be excused from providing key aspects of the original deal that would have provided valuable social amenities to Gibraltar.
|
|
|
|
