Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1496720
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 APRIL 2023 9 INTERVIEW measured by 'well-being' That all sounds well and good, on paper. But as you yourself pointed out earlier: it's not really working in practice, is it? From your own experience as former PA chairman – and now, as ERA chairman – what do you attribute this failure to, exactly? That's what I was coming to. A 'balance' [between environment and economy] can only ever be 'struck', when – first of all – de- velopment is justified on the ba- sis of 'need'; and secondly, when it is carried out, moderately and suitably, in designated urban ar- eas, whilst ensuring that Malta's limited but important environ- mental resources are effectively protected. However, the difficulties arise when certain economic pres- sures depend continuously on ongoing land development, and land-use changes, which do not respect the country's environ- mental carrying-capacity. And regrettably, today's poli- cies - which should have regulat- ed and controlled development, to that effect - ended up permit- ting additional scattered build- ings and structures throughout the countryside: including the conversion of genuine agri- cultural buildings, for other (non-agricultural) purposes; as well as the systematic sprawl of ad hoc urban development be- yond the Development Zone boundaries, amongst others. This has landed us in a situation where our urban areas, irrespec- tive of their size and location, are becoming less 'green'; and more characterised by over-develop- ment, and traffic congestion. At the same time, the ongoing development pressures – espe- cially in the countryside, and coastal areas - have continued to increase the rate of rural land take-up; consequently, increas- ing adverse impacts on the land- scape, natural sites, the topogra- phy and rural/coastal character, and so on. So if we're going to talk about 'balance': to me, the most im- portant issue is to achieve a 'bal- anced reality' out there, for the people and the environment; and not just a 'balanced policy document'. And if a 'balanced reality' ne- cessitates greater efforts, in terms of protection of the envi- ronment: then I would say that, in particular circumstances, sectoral and land use planning policies should be stricter in fa- vour of conservation; and not vice-versa. That would, presumably, ne- cessitate a review of the cur- rent Local Plans (which en- vironmentalists have been advocating for years, anyway). Do you agree that those plans are now 'outdated', in light of contemporary realities? If so, what changes would you rec- ommend, specifically? The complete set of Local Plans was finalised in 2006: that is, 17 years ago. Since then, there have been several developments, in Malta and Gozo, that have altered our urban areas and the landscape; and there have also been reviews of the Local Plans themselves: albeit limited mainly to the further planning of spe- cific sites; or to ad hoc, localised revisions. Now: the Local Plans are, in fact, very important tools for de- cision-making, as they provide the necessary policy framework for deciding development appli- cations on specific sites: accord- ing to their particular location, context so on. For example: development sites which are located partly within the Development Zone, and partly ODZ, are better ad- dressed through site-specific policies, which are tailor-made for that location... rather than by two separate general policies, like the ODZ Policy - enacted in 2014 - and the Development Control Design Policy Guidance and Standards, of 2015. Local Plans therefore need to remain site-specific, and pre- scriptive, in nature; and if they are to be updated, it should be done holistically: rather than in an ad hoc, and piece-meal man- ner. As for what needs to change, specifically: I would say that there are a number key consid- erations that the Local Plans of tomorrow should aspire to achieve. These include: a more suita- ble interpretation of building heights, depending on the spe- cific location/context of any giv- en development; policies which take into account the function, and size, of different urban set- tlements; improved quality of life; better quality design - espe- cially in UCAs [Urban Conser- vation Areas] and ODZ – as well as the need to safeguard strategic open gaps; and to designate sites for additional green open spaces and public gardens... This brings us to your current role, as ERA chairman. Ever since the 'demerger' of ME- PA in 2016, there have been countless cases where the ERA was overruled by the Plan- ning Board. Doesn't this mean that the 'balance' is actually weighted AGAINST the envi- ronment, in all cases? And what can be done, in practical terms, to redress this imbal- ance (short of ERA being given a 'Veto': which government has so far flatly refused to do?) If you'll remember: at the sit- ting of the Parliament Standing Committee for Public Appoint- ments - where I was scrutinised before being appointed as ERA chairman - I put the 'Veto' ques- tion to both sides of the House, directly: when I asked them, "Are you prepared, as govern- ment and opposition, to give ERA the right of Veto?" So yes, I certainly agree with the Veto proposal, myself. Be- cause there are instances where you get, for instance an EIA with a negative recommendation; but the permit goes up to the PA Board, and gets approved regardless. Or when ERA itself recommends a refusal – not through any EIA – but gets over- ruled by the Tribunal; and so on. Are we doing enough to 'pro- tect the environment', in such cases? I would say the answer is 'No'. At the same time, howev- er: it doesn't necessarily mean that 'giving ERA the right of Veto' is the only solution. We could also simply implement all the existing planning pol- icies, which already establish the roles and responsibilities of the two Authorities: including ERA's engagement in planning decisions. For example, Article 72 of the DPA already establishes that planning decisions should also take environmental consider- ations into account - includ- ing ERA's recommendations (amongst others). Likewise, un- der the EPA of 2016, ERA is de- fined as the competent author- ity for the environment; and as such, has a clear mandate when it comes to safeguarding the en- vironment, and its resources. The latter includes 'air, water, land, soil, sea, biodiversity, the landscape and its features', etc, etc. In this regard, I believe that ERA's recommendations on sensitive development could be given more weighting: even without any 'Veto'. The policies are already in place; all that re- mains is have clear legislation, which sets it down – clearly, in black on white – that the Plan- ning Authority has to abide by recommendations of ERA. In other words: if a develop- ment application receives a neg- ative recommendation by the ERA: the PA should respect that decision, and refuse the permit accordingly... At the risk of concluding with an awkward question: there is also a widespread perception, out there, of 'political interfer- ence' in the planning system. For instance: on the eve of the last election, the Prime Minis- ter was feted at a private party organised by construction mag- nate Joseph Portelli. Do you see any connection between that, and the 'imbalance' we are talk- ing about? And have you your- self ever been put under any po- litical 'pressure', in your time as PA chairman? All I can say is that: I have never been 'approached' by an- ybody, in that sense. And I have never been 'put under any pres- sure', in any other way. When it came to assessing applications, the first thing I would do was always: 'read the case-officer's report'; then 'hear what the ap- plicants, and their architects, had to to say'; and then, after consulting with all other rele- vant parties... I would make up my mind. I would then explain my in- terpretation of that permit application, openly, in public board meetings: so that the oth- er members, and the general public, will know exactly what direction I'm going in: whether it's 'this way', or 'that way'... And if my decision is 'No'... then I will say 'No': without any interference from anybody; and independently of 'who the ap- plicant is'. Don't get me wrong: I read the papers; I am aware that this 'perception' you talk of exists... and that names like 'Joseph Portelli', among others, crop up in stories about 'political inter- ference in the planning system', and all that. But it's one of those cases where: you either 'believe it'... or 'push it aside', and just banish it from your thoughts completely. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing justice, to the planning process as a whole...