Navigating the PA jungle

Bills 143 and 144, currently before Parliament, clearly plot the path of land use planning in the direction of the jungle. No one should be surprised in any way by this development. It has been on the horizon for quite some time. Might is right is the underlying objective of the Bills.

A fortnight ago, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life in his comments on my complaint relative to the appointment of the Planning Authority’s Executive Chairman pointed out that the capture of state institutions by lobby groups who seek to take control of their regulator is still permissible as the Maltese government has so far refrained from acting on OECD proposals on revolving door recruitment.

The proposals in Bills 143 and 144 seek to neutralize the submissions presented by the community and civil society relative to development proposals. This is being done through the establishment that submissions have to attain a level of detail, which the people cannot easily achieve.

In addition, curtailment of the timeframe for the submission of an appeal will impact the ability of third parties with limited financial power to act.

This runs afoul of EU legal provisions protecting access to environmental justice, particularly in the Aarhus Convention as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a no-go area and will eventually have to be scrapped.

While ensuring that it is made more difficult to oppose development proposals, the Bills seek to make it easier for the developer to sail through. This is achieved through ensuring that the applicable policies are more flexible than ever.

In addition, some difficult obstacles are also being removed. In particular, an amendment to Article 72 of the Development Planning Act specifically removes the environment from the issues that need to be addressed when considering a development proposal.

This proposal contrasts with the provisions of the EU Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment. It is still too early to conclude whether the government will risk the commencement of EU infringement proceedings by moving forward with this amendment. I think that eventually government will have to backtrack on this, too.

The third objective of the Bills is to increase the direct role of holders of political office in the issuance of development permits. In fact, it is proposed that the Minister will have the power to resurrect expired permits. This is most probably intended to address the legal problems created through the invalidation by the Court of Appeal of the Villa Rosa development permit as well as the Ta’ Xbiex Marina Capitanerie permit.

The cherry on the cake would be the widening of the regularisation of ODZ illegalities. This is being made possible through an amendment to Article 85 to the Development Planning Act.

This creates a jungle, a free-for-all, which can be easily navigated by the development lobby to the detriment of our residential communities. At the end of the day, it would be worth considering whether, in these circumstances, we would be better off without a Planning Authority.

Carmel Cacopardo is an architect and civil engineer, and former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta.