Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1130632
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 JUNE 2019 INTERVIEW Three buildings have been accidentally demolished in the last two months. You have been warning about improper planning and monitoring practices for many years. Do you see this as confirmation that the policy approach to this sector has all along been flawed? These are all tragedies that have long been foretold. In 2016, new planning regulations were introduced, whereby the PA had to issue a decision on planning applications within a certain time-frame. If the PA did not meet those deadlines, it would have to refund the ap- plicant at the rate of 500 euros a day. Obviously, this puts a lot of pressure on the planning au- thority to issue permits in a very expedited fashion. So there has been a flood – an avalanche – of permits: if you compare the number of permits issued per year, they're growing exponen- tially. This results in two things: less scrutiny by external con- sultees and watchdogs, and less available monitoring power on the ground, to oversee the safety issues, compliance, etc. Another thing is that: everybody is now talking about 'geological re- ports'. How many geologists do you think there are, to carry out these studies for the thousands and thousands of developments around the island? I know of only one, who is also very vocal on the same issues you mention… Yes. But can Peter Gatt turn into Padre Pio? Can he miracu- lously cope with the workload of thousands of applications? So, on one side, there is pressure on the PA to churn out permits like pastizzi. The Planning Commis- sion, which has a sitting every day, has to deal with an obscene number of cases. If you divide the time for the sitting by the number of cases, it will be about seven minutes per case. But this wasn't tied to a commensurate in resources for enforcement or monitoring powers. So basically, we're just unleashing an ava- lanche of building permits on the island, with no correspond- ing enforcement or oversight… What is the extent of the PA's enforcement powers right now? What can the authority do already, with the (limited) resources it has? There are two enforcement agencies: one within the PA itself, to ensure compliance with the planning permit. And there's the Buildings Regula- tions Office, for compliance with safety standards, etc. Now, the enforcement section of the PA… good luck with that. They have as much vim and vigour as a snail with haemorrhoids. You have to email them, chase them… then they seem to as- sume they can get by persuad- ing: like they can convince de- velopers to observe the rules through the power of persua- sion alone. All the same, howev- er, I blame the government for this. There is legislation where- by anybody who has a daily fine imposed, can appeal it… either for 'impelling' or 'humanitar- ian reasons'. These tribunal sit- tings, which decide whether to mitigate or do away with these fines, are not publicised. The decisions are not published any- where; and very, very often, the fines have been reduced. There have been examples of someone taking over a pavement on the Gzira seafront – a very lucrative spot of land – having his daily fine reduced from 3,000 euro, to 1,000-something. That makes it a great bargain. So the enforce- ment mechanism is practically non-existent; the only sanctions are these daily fines; and they can be reduced or removed, to- tally in secret. Because the pub- lic is not notified. This is one very clear indication of how the law purposely does not favour enforcement. The legislator has auto-castrated the enforcement mechanism, on purpose. Then there's BRO. They are under- resourced, and overwhelmed by the sheer amount of devel- opment going on. They're use- less, basically. And what's more, there is no way that a third- party, a citizen, can prod them into action. The provisions of law which allow them to ap- peal are 'held in abeyance'. The minister still has to render them operative; and he has not done so for three years. This law was introduced in 2016. And for three years, the minister has not thought fit to introduce the op- erational mechanism whereby citizens can appeal against even the general direction, or the in- action of the BRO… You said 'on purpose'… Yes. And I said it on purpose, because it is deliberate… … and this ties in with a gener- al perception that there is deep collusion between the construc- tion lobby, with the political class. It is a well-known fact that political parties are still financed by the business interests behind these projects. In your experi- ence, how much of the problem is down to this? It has gone further than what you are stating… the 'collusion' is now an official partnership between the developers and the government. Let me explain. A couple of years ago, the Prop- erty Malta Foundation was set up between the Malta Develop- ers' Association, and members of the government. They have a foundation together, to pro- mote property sales, and things like that. I think they have prem- ises. They have funds. And they have official recognition. So the government is MDA's partner. And the government has not en- tered into a foundation with any environmental NGO, or with any other lobby group. I think journalists should be investi- gating this. On what grounds does the government enter into a partnership – a legal body – with any particular lobby or in- terest group? Why not with the farmers? Scientists? Any others are of interest? I'm not only talk- ing about environmental NGOs. But no. The building lobby has been favoured with an official partnership with the govern- ment. They get premises, they get funds, they get jobs… You seem to be implying that the premises, funds, etc, are given for free, or subsidised by the taxpayer… I'm assuming it, yes, because it is something that has to be looked into. Where are this funny foundation's accounts? Why do government members attend every single MDA event? Why is it that, when Sandro Chetcuti sneezes, you have five government ministers run- ning to wipe his nose? Another example: recently, there was a press conference where the MDA announced the launch of the 'Considerate Contractor Scheme'. Wow, that sounded re- ally, really good, didn't it? I think there were three or four minis- ters present. But when you re- ally look into it, you realise that: one, there is no 'Considerate Contractor Scheme' actually in play. It is voluntary; and all that was done at that time… for the press launch that was attended by three ministers… was that a memorandum of understanding Lawyer and environmentalist CLAIRE BONELLO, who heads an NGO offering professional advice to people affected by construction issues, analyses the underlying causes of the recent building collapses Citizens have no power PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt