MaltaToday previous editions

maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 SEPTEMBER 2021 10 NEWS JAMES DEBONO WHILE the 2006 local plans did contain positive aspects like the designation of a number of green enclaves in urban ar- eas, and the delineation of urban con- servation areas (UCAs), this massive re- drawing of development zones has had far-reaching consequences for Malta. They included the infamous 'ration- alisation' of development boundaries, which increased building zones and led to an unprecedented urban sprawl which is still incomplete. And they also condemned large sites like Manoel Island, Ħondoq ir-Rum- mien, the Naxxar trade fair area and Mistra ridge to mega-development projects. Marsaskala bay was also ear- marked for a yacht marina, albeit this was conditional on feasibility and en- vironmental studies and tied to com- mercial development in the ex-national pool at Żonqor. 1. Local plans are already be- ing changed The local plans approved in 2006 are not cast in stone. In fact, there have been a number of occasions when these have been changed through planning control (PC) applications to change the zoning of particular areas, often to facilitate new developments. For example, the site presently occu- pied by the Centerparc shopping mall in Qormi which was designated in the local plan for warehousing, was subse- quently rezoned to accommodate retail development. Local plans have been amended to permit five-storey high retail develop- ment in Burmarrad, to remove height restrictions for factories in Mrieħel, and to allow residential development on the Ħal Far barracks site. Land in Żonqor was transferred for the devel- opment of a private university campus, even though the ODZ (outside develop- ment zone) component of the project had been zoned as a national park in the local plan, which means the local plan is yet to be amended before any develop- ment is carried out. So nothing stops the Planning Au- thority from piecemeal changes to local plans. In the case of Marsaskala, the govern- ment or the PA can change the local plan to remove the yacht marina zon- ing. And while government had claimed compensation claims as the reason not to change the designation of Ħondoq ir-Rummien as a yacht marina site, no such claims can be made with regards to the Marsaskala marina, as this will be located on public land. Unfortunately, while the planning control mechanism has often been used to permit new development not fore- seen in local plans, this mechanism has rarely been used to limit development 2. New local plans can open a can of worms New local plans could see owners of land proposing more land for develop- ment... but there are ways to keep the lid on this can of worms. There is a difference between piece- meal revision to the local plans, and brand new local plans which cover the whole island. Environmentalists are understanda- bly wary of re-opening a can of worms which could see the planning process once again drowned by requests to maximise the financial values of indi- vidual plots and properties. A similar process by the newly-elected Labour administration in 2013 simply resulted in hundreds of requests for additions to the building zones. In Gozo, according to information tabled in parliament, almost 500 requests were made for an extension of boundaries. Nationally, the process attracted 4,000 submissions, mostly from landowners who had missed the bus in 2006 and were keen on taking a ride on Labour's new bus. The demands were so blatant that even a pro-development Labour administration had cold feet, especially following the resurgence of the envi- ronmental movement after the Żonqor protests of 2016, and subsequent cam- paigns spearheaded by Moviment Graf- fitti. Moreover citizens, many of whom are property owners in their own right, can be torn between their desire to limit development to improve their quality of life, and pecuniary interests to max- imize the value of their land and prop- erty. Experience shows that while residents are likely to mobilise against immedi- ate threats to their environment, they are less likely to engage themselves in technical discussions related to zoning, building heights and classification of land. If pecuniary benefits stemming from taller buildings or extended bounda- ries are not excluded before the process commences, it will only be natural that the most vociferous will be those who own land which could appreciate in val- ue thanks to changes in local plans. Yet this raises the question: how can we redress the environmental deficit created by the 2006 local plans and sub- sequent tinkering of policies which am- plified the negative impact? 3. Labour aggravated the en- vironmental harm of the local plans. These can be ditched even in the absence of any lo- cal plan changes Design guidelines approved in 2015, translating heights in floors to height in metres, simply condemned most Mal- tese and Gozitan towns and villages to five-storey developments. This was accompanied by changes to sanitary regulations, lowering the height of each floor. In short, these guidelines made the redevelopment of entire blocks more lucrative than ever. Other policies which contributed to the urban sprawl included new policies allowing extra heights on old people's homes and hotels, and a rural policy approved in 2014 that gave the PA the magic wand to turn piles of rubble into stores and villas. These policies can be scrapped imme- diately before waiting for any change in local plans. The Nationalist opposition is also bound to tell us which policies it will ditch, which policies it will keep and which it will change. 4. Changing SPED should precede new local plans Environment and planning minister Aaron Farrugia himself has rightly ex- cluded a change in local plans before a review of the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, which ranks highest in the hierarchy of plan- ning regulations. But much depends on how this is changed. For example, the present SPED simply states that land outside development zones must remain 'approximately' the same as today, which leaves room Local plans How Labour acts like the PN is still in power Six reasons why Labour is wrong in using the PN's local plans approved in 2006 as an alibi for its sins, instead of grabbing them by the horns and changing them

• Cover