Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/667669
14 THE controversial demerger of MEPA which saw MP Marlene Farrugia resign from the Labour Party, has been marketed by gov- ernment as a way to strengthen the environment. Following the demerger earlier this month, previous MEPA chief executive officer Johann Buttigieg will be now leading the new Plan- ning Authority. Sustainable development remains one of the authority's favourite buzzwords but if the environment and planning are equally important shouldn't the new Environment Authority have a power to veto de- velopment if it disagrees with it? "The role of the Environment Authority is to protect the envi- ronment. The role of the Planning Authority is to strike a balance which takes account of planning, environment, social and economic development. In the past the envi- ronment directorate did not have a power to appeal MEPA's decision. Now it has the power to appeal (in front of the Environment and Plan- ning Review Tribunal) against deci- sions taken by the PA." One of the most radical changes to be introduced in the next weeks is the so-called "summary proce- dure." This fast track procedure will ap- ply to applications for development within development zones but not located in urban conservation areas and will be limited to any develop- ment which amounts to fewer than 16 apartments. "If you are proposing a develop- ment in the development zone, you are not in the urban conservation or villa area and your proposal is in line with plans and policies, the ap- plication will be assessed through this procedure," according to Butti- gieg. Buttigieg points out that the pro- cedure will also apply to Devel- opment Notifications for minor developments such as washrooms and air-conditioning units which are already approved in the absence of pblic hearings. He points out that in this case the new reform will ensure greater transparency as resi- dents will be informed of any such development. Buttigieg insists that the new system still has safeguards against abuse because each application will still pass the scrutiny of three persons: the case officer who will consider whether it conforms to existing policies, his senior who will endorse the report and finally the chairperson of the Planning Com- mission. He also points out that the public will still be able to present objec- tions. "If someone files a valid objection and the chairperson agrees, the ap- plication will be processed through the regular procedure which in- cludes a public hearing." But more pertinently, does the PA have the resources to ensure that normal permits are issued in 12 weeks without any slackening in standards? "I believe that the media and gen- eral public will be our watchdogs," replies the executive chairman. To make the new timeframes binding, the PA will even be fining itself in case of delays: €25 a day in the case of applications issued through the summary procedure, €100 a day in the case of normal ap- plications, a €500 a day in the case of major projects. These amounts will be automatically deducted from the bill paid by the applicant. The Development Planning Act gives the minister responsible for planning – in this case the Prime Minister or his parliamentary sec- retary – the ultimate power to issue new rules to regularise illegal devel- opments. Are plans to regularise illegal de- velopments announced last year still in the pipeline? The executive chairman points out that a legal notice will be issued soon but the "regularisation" will be limited to illegal developments car- ried out within development zones and will not apply to ODZ develop- ment. The regularisation will also apply to developments carried out before a certain date and will not apply to developments which have a nega- tive impact on the environment. Asked about the Armier boat- houses, Buttigieg replies that this is a decision which has to be taken at a political level, and that there are more pressing priorities like poli- cies encouraging economic devel- opment and improving the quality of life. In November 2013, with the help of the Armed Forces of Malta, the then MEPA was meant to pull down illegally erected structures at Montekristo, one of which was a four-storey tower, dubbed 'the De Redin tower'. Two years down the line have any structures been pulled down? Buttigieg replies by expressing satisfaction that during his term as CEO illegal development in this lo- cation has not increased. "We have at least contained it… and some structures have also been demolished. These included a 130 foot roofed structure and the foun- dations of another structure. Part of this has been demolished by us and a part by (the owner) Charles Polidano himself. We have also stopped the operations related to the zoo." He also points out that the con- tainment of illegalities in the area was the result of increased vigilance. There have even been instances where some alteration works were taking place after 9pm during the change of shifts. Subsequently a 24/7 watch was introduced for six months. Buttigieg also insists that daily fines are applicable and these have already accumulated to more than €250,000 which includes the costs of the police watch. MEPA has also initiated legal action and now the PA has the executive authority to sequester Polidano's assets. He also insists that the second in- cident involving a big cat attacking a child took place despite increased supervision, which included two spot checks by MEPA officers to ensure that the zoo remains closed, held during the previous week which coincided with the hunting festival. "We had no clue that the zoo would open again on Sunday. Oth- erwise we would have acted." Shouldn't public activities in a building riddled with illegalities be banned in the first place? Buttigieg replies by pointing out that permits are only issued for activities and functions which are being held in the "legal" parts of the site. "We have to distinguish between the illegal and the legal part which falls under one single ownership." Back in 2013 Buttigieg confirmed that MEPA was holding talks with Polidano about the illegal devel- opment, "discussing what simply could not be tolerated and what could possibly be sanctioned". What was the result of these talks? "The discussions are still ongoing. We have to keep in mind we are not talking of one dwelling or residence but on a whole estate. Where ille- galities were allowed to happen for a number of years cannot just be stopped…" Don't you understand that the public resents the practice of regu- larising illegalities? "Our position on Montekristo is that only things which can be sanc- tioned according to policy can be regularised. The rest has to be re- moved. We will only reguralise any development at Montekristo if ille- galities which defy policies and can- not be regularised are removed. But it does not make sense to remove illegal development which can be re-erected according to policies." But while the MEPA reform bill of 2010 included the sixth schedule, which effectively prevented MEPA from regularising ODZ develop- ments, the new law does not in- clude such a clause. "It does not make sense to stop people from sanctioning develop- ment which can be regularised ac- cording to policies. What we are saying now is that one should pay a hefty fine for illegalities to serve as a deterrent, demolish what can't be sanctioned and seek a permit for what can be regularised according to policy. If I am going to give you a permit in two months' time, what sense does it make to ask the owner to have it demolished before the permit is issued?" Wasn't it even a greater deterrent to stop the PA from sanctioning ODZ developments? "No… it simply resulted in a situation where people were not even applying to redress the situ- ation. This resulted in a situation where the illegalities were simply left there. Owners were simply ex- pecting the PA to demolish the il- legalities instead of taking steps to remove them and regularise their position. But what is completely il- legal and cannot be regularised ac- cording to existing policies has to be demolished." In July 2014 the MEPA fined own- ers of illegal billboards €400 each for ignoring the June 20 deadline for their removal. But instead of coming down, the number of bill- boards continued to increase, what does the latest legal notice change? "Clearly the €400 deterrent was not an effective one. The deterrent was ignored as people were paying the fine and still put up their bill boards." Buttigieg explains that the pre- vious law contained a number of loopholes through which non- commercial billboards could be set up without any need of a planning permit. What happened was that commercial billboards were often turned in to non-commercial ones, thus invalidating PA's enforcement. He also explains that enforcing the legality of each billboard to check whether these are commercial or not is taxing on an authority which would rather focus on more seri- ous infringements outside develop- ment zones. The Planning Author- ity's current enforcement division consists of 34 officials who have to monitor the whole country. What effectively changes with the new legal notice is that non-com- mercial billboards will need the same permit as commercial ones. He also refers to the problem that different permits have been issued by different authorities in the past decades. "Everyone has been given the chance to register the permit they have at present so we can take stock of the situation. We have given eve- ryone the chance to check the va- lidity of their permits before taking action." He also points out that the PA had issued around 300 permits for billboards in the past years. "We have come to the absurd sit- uation where illegal billboards have been set up in front of legal ones." The other change is that the €400 fine for setting up an illegal bill- board has been raised to €1,000. How sure is Buttigieg that this will now be an effective deterrent con- sidering that the previous one had failed? "We have to wait and see…The first time it was €400, this time we have raised it to €1,000, we can even raise it to €2,000…I don't think bill- board owners will be happy to pay these fines." Writing in the annual report for 2014 the PA CEO wrote that he expected the technical finalisation of the draft local plans setting new planning parameters like building heights in different areas had to be completed by June 2015. Sub- sequently the plans were to be ap- proved by the government. What Interview By James Debono maltatoday, SUNDAY, 17 APRIL 2016 I believe that the media and general public will be our watchdogs NEW EXPRESS PROCEDURE We have at least contained it… and some structures have also been demolished ILLEGALITIES AT MONTEKRISTO Making planning faster