Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1369939
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 MAY 2021 NEWS JAMES DEBONO THE Planning Authority up- held or partly accepted 24 pe- titions to reduce fines related to illegal development, but the decisions on these requests are being kept under wraps unlike all other decisions taken by the Authority. MaltaToday has now filed a freedom of information request for the authority to provide the full information. In 2015, a legal notice permit- ted the PA to consider written requests from persons served with daily fines to pay a "com- promise fine" instead. The petition system intro- duced in 2015 complemented another one introduced in 2012 through which those hit by dai- ly fines can appeal directly to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. In Marchk, the EPRT slashed €169,000 in 25 different daily fines imposed by the PA. But while the EPRT's deci- sions are public, with the tri- bunal providing a case-by-case justification for accepting, partly accepting or rejecting these petitions, decisions by the PA remain shrouded in se- crecy. A spokesperson for the PA confirmed that in the past six years the Planning Authori- ty had received 56 requests to reduce daily fines imposed on illegal developments. Of these 27 were dismissed, while 18 resulted in the fines being reduced. In six cases the fine was written off mainly due to the fact that "a sanctioning fee was paid". Three are still pending a decision. No reply was given to Mal- taToday's question on the amount of money forfeited each year since the compromise fine mechanism came in place. The PA's spokesperson confirmed that "to date the requests and decisions related to 'compro- mised fines' are not published". How compromise fine mechanism works The PA has the power to ac- cept or refuse requests by own- ers of illegal buildings to pay a "compromise penalty", instead of the daily fines which under the law can reach up to €50 a day. The legal notice itself was in- troduced in the absence of any public consultation, since the minister responsible for plan- ning was exempted from such consultation as happens in oth- er instances involving changes to planning rules. According to the legal notice any request for a compromise fine must specify "the impelling reason" why the penalty estab- lished by law is not to be paid, as well as "the manner in which the fine" is to be changed. The new legal notice also fore- saw the creation of a new com- mittee composed of three board members, one of whom is the chairman of the PA or a chair- person of the two environment and planning commissions. In 2015 the PA allowed those who feel that fines are unjust to appeal to the EPRT, the PA's ap- peals tribunal. In fact those who ask for a "compromise penalty" also renounce their right to ap- peal against the fine imposed on them before the EPRT. But the PA claimed that ap- pealing to the EPRT resulted to "an additional financial burden" which "further protracts the time taken for a final solution to be sought". So the legal notice allowed "for a swifter and more streamlined process" with decisions taken by a sub-committee made up of board members who were already "aware of the circum- stances of the original decision". Scan this code for more details Secrecy on why PA waives enforcement fines PA waived enforcement fines in 24 cases since 2015 but refuses to divulge amounts waived