PESARO. Variation of Largo Tre Martiri, there is the final green light with the yes of the majority. «Less volumes and residents’ requests regarding traffic have been accepted. With the recovery of the former Suzuki the whole city will benefit”, says Della Dora. For the opposition there was “so much haste and mistakes on this resolution”. The committee doesn’t give up: «Let’s continue with the battle, now let’s evaluate the appeal to the TAR». At the beginning of the discussion, yesterday the center-right tried to ask for a postponement of the resolution, starting the urban planning process from scratch in the new mandate. The majority rejected the request and at the end of the debate approved, with 17 votes in favour, and the opposition 8 against, the Largo Tre Martiri variant.
Now, with the yes to the third step, the four sub-sectors can be activated independently by private individuals. «Let’s maintain the current road system, there will be a reduction in land consumption with 600 m2 less building surface – began Urban Planning Councilor Mila Della Dora – The entire intervention brings with it a reduction in the hydraulic risk of the buildings . The owners of Ex Suzuki have made it clear that it is not at all true that there is no will to intervene. The whole city has an interest in seeing that site redeveloped.” Fratelli d’Italia councilor Michele Redaelli is harsh towards the variant: «After the serious urban planning error of the second passage, now a further error is added to the chain of serious errors that characterize this resolution. The Province requires giving continuity to the cycle path which now ends in nothingness. However, in the plans of the resolution there is no route of the cycle path and it is referred to the executive phase. The indications remain unclear. If built on one side it will be necessary to create a crossing of the road near a curve.”
In detail
«If built on the other – he continues – a row of trees will need to be cut down, the lanes will need to be narrowed and the road will need to be moved, thus invading the green area. By postponing clarity on the cycle path to the executive phase, it will not be possible to manage this situation also because at that point the municipality will have already given up its building capacity and therefore will have no way to decide. How much haste and how many errors for a resolution that started badly and which will cause big problems for the people of Pesaro.”
Daniele Malandrino (FdI) had hoped for a rethink, which did not occur, by the majority on the resolution. «In Soria there is no need for new buildings, they were planned for a city that twenty years ago was heading towards a growth process that then never occurred». Giulia Marchionni (Prima C’è Pesaro) noted that «the opinion of the Province on this variant was the fastest ever issued by a Public Administration. The way in which this third step was reached represents all the arrogance demonstrated by the council over all these years.”
Back and forth
Della Dora “returned” the term arrogance to the sender, while on the timing with which the favorable opinion arrived from via Gramsci, between the second and third passage of the variant, “similar times occurred for resolutions such as the reduction of consumption of land, hospital, Chiusa di Ginestreto”. Giampiero Bellucci (Pd), on the topic of completing the cycle path, required in the provincial prescription, reported that «the technicians will be tasked with finding the best solution. I understand those who are critical, but there are solutions that must be adopted if results are to be achieved. Those who suffer direct damage may not be happy with this choice, but the future of the city is at stake and this administration takes responsibility for the path.” The centre-right councilor Giovanni Dallasta notes the impact of the buildings on the neighbourhood, «a five-storey building near the Foglia river, other buildings in a green area. Three buildings on a roundabout, almost 40 apartments, how can you vote for a variant of this type? The ball will go to the next mayor, who could also be ours.” For Dario Andreolli (Lega) «by voting for this resolution, no one will be able to talk about participatory urban planning. This was proper urban planning in progress.”
pros and cons
Lorenzo Lugli (M5S) recalls that «we have listened to the citizens’ requests, the resolution has been modified. The actions could have been even more incisive, but the time has come to decide, we can no longer wait.” Upon reading the outcome of the vote, among the members of the committee present around the chamber there were those who reacted with the term “shame”. Upon leaving, spokeswoman Rosalia Cipolletta said: «We saw an embarrassed city council, they understood our requests, but they didn’t want to go back. They made a mistake, citizens will continue to fight against this resolution. We will have a new meeting to evaluate whether to appeal to the TAR.”
Tags: council variant Residents TAR
