Loss of business due to Open Centre siting should be compensated

The Ombudsman upheld a complaint by the operator of a wedding and conference hall in Hal Far, who said the siting of the open centre for migrants had led to commercial losses for the operator.

Chief justice emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino specifically said that the commercial activity of hawkers catering to residents of the Hal Far 'tent city' by the main entrance, was chaotic and had to be properly regulated and well-lit.

The ombudsman also said that the lack of control by the authorities, including the fact that the open centre was not even covered by a MEPA permit, had rendered the complainant "a victim of such failure with serious financial repercussions."

He recommended that the competent authorities, including MEPA, investigate the situation to determine what steps were needed to be taken in line with his report so as to address complainant's grievances. His final opinion was also sent to the police, the home affairs ministry, and the open centre's management.

"Government should consider that it was not fair for one single person to suffer in a disproportionate manner because of the interests of the country and should consequently compensate complainant in an adequate manner.

"In making this statement, the Ombudsman referred to an analogous case, a villa in Delimara where the Courts ordered compensation because of the negative effects of the Enemalta Power Station chimney to the detriment of the owner of that villa" - the ombudsman said, referring to Dom Mintoff's compensation due to the Delimara power station.

In his complaint, the wedding hall operator said that he did not dispute the free movement of the open centre's residents, but that the related commercial activities outside the centre had to respect regulations.

The Ombudsman's investigation found that the sole arterial road leading to the complainant's establishment, which is duly licensed to hold weddings and other receptions for several hundreds guests, was poorly lit at night. The Open Centre itself was described as "a depressing site" that raised doubts from a humanitarian aspect.

"The negative impact of the siting of the Centre on complainant's business was very evident not only because of the visual degradation inherent in the set-up, but more importantly because of the chaotic traffic situation that had been allowed to develop in the immediate vicinity of the main entrance to the Centre," Said Pullicino said.

"A certain level of commercial activity has developed to cater for the needs of this community - resulting in a number of hawkers gathering daily at different times of the day, but especially in late afternoon and evening.

"The road in question has no pavement and the commercial activity at times assumes the proportion of an open market, often congested, making access by car very difficult and dangerous both to residents and drivers, and all the more so in winter when there is less daylight. The situation becomes even worse when cars are heading for a reception at complainant's establishment."

Said Pullicino said that without a MEPA permit covering the open centre, no environmental impact assessment had been carried out. He suggested that the open centre's main gate is narrowed and used for administrative purposes and that a small gate is opened on the south side for easy access to the residents. He also suggested an alternative place to accommodate hawkers.

"A certain amount of commercial activity is needed in the area but this should be regulated by the identification of a properly designed location, with hawkers duly licensed, and in full respect of regulations as applicable to other open markets," Said Pullicino said.