Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1496720
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 APRIL 2023 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 'Success' should be measured Last month, the Court of Appeal revoked a development permit in Santa Lucija - which had been approved by the Envi- ronment and Planning Review Tribunal - on the basis that the Planning Act obliges the PA to take into account (inter alia) "environmental, aesthetic and sanitary considerations." Do you share the view that this constitutes a 'landmark' ruling, that will alter the way planning applications are decided in fu- ture? When I was chairman of the Planning Authority, I myself had always argued that: 'we are los- ing our streetscapes'. I said that, both during PA board meetings; and also earlier, when I was Pres- ident of the Kamra Tal-Periti. In fact, it has been going on for decades. The first real 'building boom' began in the 60s and 70s: when we experienced ribbon de- velopment, with a sprawl of new buildings. Then, during the 80s, construction seemed to take a lull. But the publication of the Local Plans, in 2006, gave rise once again to an appetite for construction and development. As a result, we started to lose our characteristic two- and three-storey buildings; and in their place, started to see low rise buildings; 'egg-crate devel- opments'; and subsequently, high-rise buildings.... until the point where we are fast losing our traditional streetscapes, to what is generally known as 'pen- cil-development'. If you look at the typical Mal- tese streetscape, today: we still have quite a few cases where there would be an entire street of two-storey houses – complete with traditional balconies, etc. – but then, all of a sudden, some- one comes along, and applies to build a five-storey building right in the middle of it. And just like that, the entire streetscape is ru- ined... Now: the answer I always used to get, whenever I raised such objections in the past, was: "How can you deprive those applicants of their 'right', as given to them by the Local Plans, to demolish their own, two-storey house... and build a five-storey one in- stead?' But to me, that is just 'not on'. Because in reality, the Local Plans do not give any such 'right' to applicants. All they do is set a maximum limit, to the amount of storeys that can be applied for in any given locality. And if the maximum limit is set at 'five sto- reys': it doesn't mean that the ap- plicant has an automatic 'right' to be given a permit for five sto- reys. It just means that 'five sto- reys' is the most that can be ap- plied for; but it is – or should be – up to the PA (and in particular, the case-officer) to decide how many storeys to actually permit. So to come back to your ques- tion: the law-courts have now decided – and there is no going back from it – that people do not, in fact, have the 'right' to build up to the maximum level, permitted by the Local Plans... If I may butt in: the same ruling also points out that "although a development may adhere to the height limitation [...] it could still be in breach of oth- er policies which cannot be over-ruled simply because the height limitation is respected." Precisely. So yes, this was a very good 'test-case'; and I assume that the Planning Authority will now have to abide by that deci- sion by the courts... And yet, for all these years, we have been hearing the same old mantra about 'the need to strike a balance between the environment, and the econ- omy'. At a glance, this ruling also seems to confirm – if any further confirmation were needed – that this 'balance' has never really been struck, at all. But do you even agree with this particular approach to urban planning, to begin with? Do you see your own role, as ERA charman, to be a 'balancing act', between 'environmental' and 'economic' concerns? First of all, it is crucial to recog- nise that the environment sup- ports the existence of society, as a whole – which, in turn, creates economic activity to sustain it- self. So I would say that one can- not really function successfully, without the other. I might also add that the prop- er conservation of Malta's envi- ronmental resources – including not just 'landscapes', 'valleys', etc.; but also our heritage, both natural and cultural – is itself an essential pillar of the economy: both to support a sustainable tourism sector; as well as to pro- vide the much-needed natural open spaces for citizens... most of whom live, and work, in an urban environment. And this recognition is also what underpins ERA's most strategic policy-directions – the 'Vision for Malta's Environ- ment', and the subsequent 'Na- tional Strategy for the Environ- ment' – which are based on the fundamental consideration that the environment is 'critical for our wellbeing'; and recognise the need to support the develop- ment of an economy which val- ues such wellbeing, as a 'measure of success'. The same approach is also shared by Malta's Econom- ic Vision 2021: wherein one of the five main pillars focuses on 'sustainable economic growth geared towards quality-of-life improvements': partly, to be achieved through redefining the measures of success. And a similar thrust is echoed in Malta's National Employment Policy, too. In a nutshell, all those policy documents converge on the need to 'redefine our meas- ure of success' [in planning]: in part, by adjusting the coun- try's economic model to some- thing more holistic... something which includes other metrics, apart from financial ones: such as physical and social wellbeing, the environment and the quality of work. Newly appointed ERA chairman VINCE CASSAR argues that any attempt to 'strike a balance between environment and economy', should begin with an economic model that 'values wellbeing, as a measure of success'