Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/290775
27 There is an irony in the fact that the Labour Party had vociferously opposed the extension of the development zones in 2005, and had repeatedly accused the former Nationalist administration of being in cahoots with big business when it came to dishing out devel- opment permits. Today, the Labour government appears to have changed its opinion about illegal devel- opment. Its proposed reform of the planning sector, outlined in a consultation document entitled 'For an Efficient Planning System', marks a blunt return to the situation as it stood before the 2010 MEPA reform, carried out by the Gonzi administration under pres- sure from the environmental lobby and with the support of the PL. The salient feature of that reform was the prohibition of any sanctioning of illegal development in scheduled and ODZ areas. Essentially this addressed the greatest abuse in Malta's planning system, through which people build illegally only to later apply to sanction the development. Article 70 of the Environment and Develop- ment Planning Act, enacted by the previous government in December 2010, prohibited MEPA from granting permits for illegal developments built in ODZ or scheduled areas. The sixth schedule of the Environment and Development Planning Act also banned MEPA from regularising any illegal extension to ODZ development. But the consultation document issued this week envisages replacing the sixth sched- ule with the imposition of daily fines. At a glance, this merely suggests that it is no longer illegal for MEPA to sanction irregular development, as has been the case for the past four years. More worrying still, by making fines the only deterrent to illegal building, the same policy suggests that developers may simply be able to 'buy' the right to sanction illegal buildings through payment – a state of affairs that is practically indistinguishable from the status quo before 2010, which Labour had vociferously opposed. The new document also reintroduces 'outline permits', which were perceived as instrumental in the process of regularising irregular development. Examples include the Mistra Heights development, where the issue of an outline permit in 2008 was used justify a permit issued in 2013. In this way, decisions committing future boards can now be taken under the perception that the development is not imminent, and the planning board is sim- ply setting the parameters of a development. More controversial still is the power given to the Minister responsible for planning to regularise illegalities. This is problematic on a number of counts. Not only does it send the message that politicians can ultimately shift the goalposts at will but it also directly contradicts the government's commitment to broaden the decision-making process beyond the sphere of purely governmental control. In a sense this takes us back to long before the 2010 reform, or even the creation of MEPA in the 1990s… to a time when the minister's word was the be-all and end-all of all such decisions. One can only wonder if this extraordinary U-turn was in any way inf luenced by com- mitments made to the Armier boathouse lobby before the last election. The minister's new powers also directly contradict the mission statement of the newly formed Environment and Resources Authority, which places much emphasis on greater autonomy. As such, this redistribu- tion of power may have undermined the same reform's otherwise positive aspects, including the fact that the majority of board members of the ERA will not be government employ- ees, but independent professionals chosen on the basis of their expertise. The expertise of an 'autonomous' author- ity cannot count for much in practice if the final decision can still be taken by a govern- ment minister. Elsewhere there are indica- tions that the proposed reform has not been properly thought through. For instance, the new policy allows for a reconsideration of the scheduling of a listed building after 10 years. This may give unscrupulous developers an incentive to allow such buildings to deterio- rate through neglect, in order to strip them of any conservation value. In fact there seems to be no other reason for this policy other than to allow for the possibility of redeveloping scheduled buildings, rendering permanent protection impossible. One must also question the wisdom of re- moving the environmental remit from MEPA and re-investing it in the new Environment and Resources Authority instead. Ironi- cally, it was MEPA's chairman Vince Cassar who criticised the proposal shortly before the last election, arguing, "it is difficult to say what this will achieve. [Environmental and Planning] are intrinsically connected, and decisions taken by one affect the other. Sustainable development is based on three main pillars – environmental, economic and socio-political sustainability. The three aspects cannot be separated…" Under scrutiny, the decision to split MEPA's former responsibilities into two can be seen as a relegation of the environment to the backburner. Conservation issues are now the domain of the ERA, which has only a single vote on the board of a planning authority that will ultimately be calling all the shots. This is very clearly a case of turning back the clock when it comes to environment protection. It would have been far preferable to emphasise the 'E' in MEPA, rather than remove it altogether in favour of a set-up that is clearly biased in favour of rampant development. maltatoday, SUNDAY, 6 APRIL 2014 Editorial MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt Quote of the week "We must continue to understand the importance of diversity and multi-culturalism. This is a strong social challenge and an important reality that affects us all." – Marie Louise Coleiro Preca in her inaugural speech after being sworn in as President of the Republic Turning back the clock