Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/702141
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 10 JULY 2016 15 Interview Malta Developers' Association chairman SANDRO CHETCUTI argues that the 'property bubble' will only burst if Malta changes its cautious approach to construction and development bursting yet on an individual basis, not because they bought them in bulk. Other- wise, they would go bankrupt…" To stick to the issue of mega- projects (regardless of how tall): The Malta Developers' Association represents a number of companies in the construction and develop- ment sector… including many that would be considered 'small and medium enterprises'. Yet we also seem to be living in an age char- acterised by mega-projects, for which only the largest companies and consortia can realistically bid. Is Chetcuti concerned with the long-term survival prospects of the MDA's smallest members? "To tell you the truth, all these mega-projects worry me. On a level playing field, certain mega-projects wouldn't happen at all, because they are not doable. It would be a lot healthier for all concerned if the wealth was distributed more even- ly, and if new projects were based on a small-to-medium scale. It doesn't mean the country will nev- er need a project or two of a cer- tain size; but I believe the general approach should be smaller-scale." Speaking of national projects, the 'national interest' was recently cited as the main reason for the ap- proval of a new private university to be built outside the development zone (ODZ) at Zonqor point. In tandem with this decision, the 2006 local plans were also amended to permit ODZ development, at the discretion of the government. Does Chetcuti agree with open- ing up more land to development? "In principle, I agree that ODZ land should not be developed. In this case, the government pre- pared a project which – let's face it – nobody really wanted to do. A university… it's not the kind of project Maltese developers would usually be enthusiastic about. The question I would ask is, is this pro- ject really in the national interest? That's for the government to de- cide, definitely not me. "If it is, the government has to find a way of making it happen. Our position from day one was: it would be best if the project oc- cupied as little ODZ space as pos- sible. And it seems the government made this kind of compromise. But on principle, we disagree with more developments outside the approved zones. There are a lot of areas which, even though ODZ, are already touched by development. When there is need for a project in the national interest, we would prefer the government to choose areas which are already disturbed or committed, rather than virgin land." It was roughly at this stage that Chetcuti himself had said 'Make hay while the sun shines'. He laughs when I ask him whether that com- ment fits in with the view he has just expressed. "It was a very popular quote… it is still being repeated today! Yes, I still believe you have to make hay while the sun shines… in the sense that you must seize opportunities while the economy is doing well. When the economy is strong, you have to invest at that moment… otherwise, you'll end up regret- ting the missed opportunities..." So he wasn't suggesting that MDA members jump on the bandwagon and avail of the loop- holes afforded them by the gov- ernment? "Well, everything is subject to interpretation; but I can as- sure you that the spirit in which I passed that comment, and the context in which I was talking, were very clear. The economy is doing well; now is the time to em- ploy those four people you were thinking about employing, to em- bark on that project you've been dreaming about. Now is the time, not later. It is in times of reces- sion that you sit back and observe. Today is not a time of recession: we have an economy the likes of which we have never seen in the last 50 years… at least, in the pri- vate sector." Meanwhile, the Opposition re- acted to the ODZ issue by pro- posing a two-thirds parliamentary pre-requisite for ODZ projects. Does he agree? "We were consulted by the oppo- sition on this proposal. I think it is very vague… the opposition tried to take a stand that was popular, but at the same time – though the intention may be genuine – you can't have a parliamentary discus- sion requiring a two-thirds ma- jority; then another debate with a two-thirds majority… then one with a simple majority… no, that's something I can't agree with. You have to decide in life; either it's two-thirds, or else you're just prolonging the discussion so that the end result remains the same anyway. Still, the opposition can always fine-tune the proposal. We made suggestions on that, too…" What about the implications for the planning process, though? At present, the onus of approv- ing an application falls to MEPA. Doesn't this proposal wrest that authority from where it should be, and invest it in a parliament made up of political parties that are in- debted to big business? He shrugs. "The reality is that the government – forever and ever, Amen – has always had a hold on the planning process. It is useless to hide behind the author- ity. It's always been that way; it's still that way, and it is difficult for that mentality to change. Apart from the fact that the government always ends up taking the blame for the Authority's decision, too; let's be fair. "When we like, we turn on ME- PA; when we like, we turn on the government… again, we have to decide. Either we leave the plan- ning process entirely in the hands of the authority, or else we leave it to the politician in parliament. On a practical level, it doesn't make much difference. They're still people. All people make mistakes. "Personally, I would suggest that the planning process be en- trusted to PLANNERS [heavy emphasis]… and we need good planners in Malta, because there is a serious lack. Too few look at planning on a long-term, holistic level. And this is the problem we have always faced: the politician, though he may have the best of intentions, will never see every- thing, because he's not technical. He needs the advice of technical experts. Governments, develop- ers, civil society, can all say what- ever they like; but on the technical level, it should be the experts who decide."