Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1436880
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 DECEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW 'Money talks'. But people can shout It has, on the whole, been a good week for environmental activism. First there was the withdrawal – by the applicants themselves - of a controversial ferry terminal project at Balluta bay; later, the Court of Appeal overturned a PA permit for a waterpolo pitch in Marsascala. You were involved in both those cases: so first of all, how do you interpret those victories? The two cases you mention are actually very different re- sults: although they do emanate from the same sort of pressure by NGOs and the general pub- lic alike. In the Balluta pontoon case, we had the developers them- selves reacting to concert- ed and constant opposition from residents and activists, by withdrawing the applica- tion on their own initiative. That is a positive sign, which indicates that public pressure does work… even if only in the short-term. On the other hand, the Ap- peals Court judgment - which revoked the Marsascala water- polo pitch permit – was an en- tirely different ballgame. Here, we had a case where a permit was actually granted; but after objectors filed an appeal – first with the planning tribunal, and subsequently with the Court of Appeal – the ruling found in their favour, on the basis of a wrong interpretation of the law by the tribunal. Unlike the Balluta case, then, that was actually a legal victory: which overturned an existing development permit on legal grounds. But it still stemmed from the same source: that is, the constant vigilance and work of NGOs, and the general public. So unfortunately, what this means in practice is that: if NGOs, and individual mem- bers of the public, do not ob- ject to these applications, on a case-by-case basis… if they are not hawk-eyed, and constant- ly on the look-out, 24/7, for abuses; and if they do not con- stantly appeal against unlawful PA decisions, at their own con- siderable cost… none of those 'victories', as you call them, would even be possible… What you seem to be suggest- ing is that, while public pres- sure has been successful in certain cases, the system itself hasn't changed at all. This also seems to be borne out by oth- er recent PA decisions: such as a recent permit to demolish a historical Gozo farmhouse, against objections by all herit- age watchdogs…. That is exactly what I am sug- gesting. No, the system hasn't changed at all. It is still geared up only for the churning out of development permits, come what may… overriding all en- vironmental or heritage con- cerns – not to mention oppo- sition by residents and local councils – in the process. And the demolition of that Gozo farmhouse is a classic ex- ample of this, in practice. It il- lustrates precisely how 'wrong' the system is; and how horren- dous is results really are. It is also a good example of what objectors are actually up against. For in a preceding ap- plication, the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage had insist- ed on the preservation of that farmhouse; and the PA's initial decision was, in fact, to refuse the permit. But what happened was that – while the appeal against that first decision was still under- way – there was another ap- plication, to develop the same site, that went by unnoticed. And unfortunately, the demoli- tion was approved, on the basis of this second application… That is precisely the kind of unfair situation we very of- ten find ourselves in. The on- ly 'successes' that can ever be achieved, are those cases where there is constant opposition, and vigilance, by objectors. But realistically speaking, this situation cannot go on much longer. NGOs, and individual citizens, are strapped for cash and resources; there are limits to their time and energy. Besides: it is the responsibil- ity of the Planning Authority, and the Planning Tribunal, to respect and enforce those laws, plans and policies which mili- tate for the safeguarding of our natural and cultural heritage. So why should they be forced to live up to those responsibil- ities, only by NGOs and res- idents who end up wasting so much their own precious time, and resources, on never-end- ing appeals? It is really quite exhausting; and it shouldn't have to be this way. There are already laws and policies in place; it shouldn't have to fall to the general pub- lic, to insist on them being en- forced… But are those laws and policies really enough to protect Mal- ta's urban and natural envi- ronment? The Gozo farmhouse case was not the only time when objections by the SHC, or the ERA, were ignored. Do you agree with the argument that these entities should be given a 'bigger say' – possibly, even a 'final say' – in the planning process? I am very cautious about ad- vocating for the right of veto, to be wielded by any one par- ticular authority or another. It has, for example, already been suggested that ERA should be able to veto individual plan- ning applications, on environ- Environmentalists have recently won a few important battles in their struggle against over-development; but as lawyer/activist CLAIRE BONELLO warns, it will take a serious systemic overhaul of the planning system to 'win the war' Nicole Meilak nmeilak@mediatoday.com.mt