Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/753405
14 IF there is one national stereo- type with which we can all (more or less) agree, it is that 'urban planning' is not one of Malta's fortes as a nation. Up until the early 1990s there was no autonomous competent authority to speak of at all: mat- ters of infrastructure, land-use policy, the approval or otherwise of construction projects, etc., all fell directly to the relevant gov- ernment departments and min- istries. With the advent of the Plan- ning Authority in 1992 – and al- so the local plans, which sought to give direction to future de- velopment – one would have expected the haphazard nature of urban sprawl to somehow be brought under control. Yet it was over the next two decades that most of what we now consider the most brazen planning blas- phemies actually took place. The elegance that was the Sliema sea- front made way for today's un- even 'broken teeth' skyline... and the same pattern – i.e., earlier, better-planned neighbourhoods ruined by shortsighted greed – has repeated itself in various other parts of Malta and Gozo. Elsewhere, the PA's own policies seem to be constantly amended to allow for this or that project to go ahead... resulting in frequent contradictions, and often wildly different applica- tions of the same planning laws. Without going into too much de- tail, there has been a steady and palpable erosion of public trust in the institution as a whole. On paper, then, one would think it a good idea to change our overall approach to urban plan- ning: for instance, by designat- ing specific areas like Paceville for comprehensive development according to a masterplan. The idea in fact makes eminent sense, as it seems to avoid repeating the architectural and infrastructural mistakes of yesteryear. Yet no sooner did the govern- ment unveil its masterplan for Paceville last month, than – as Deborah Schembri will later put it – 'all hell broke loose'. Drawn up by international consult- ants Mott MacDonald (among others), the plan was instantly criticised for seeming to propose expropriation of private land for equally private real estate pro- jects. Tempers flared at a public consultation meeting, where it emerged that Mott MacDonald's had previously done consultancy work for Mercury House: a high- rise development that (according to the masterplan) will occupy pride of place at the very centre of the redesigned entertainment hub. As the parliamentary secretary responsible for planning, Debo- rah Schembri was herself visibly uncomfortable as these and oth- er details emerged in public. She has since ordered a review of the masterplan... although through- out this interview, she will insist that it was only a first draft... and as such, was all along going to be amended anyway. But let's start with the alleged conflict of interest. The decision to hire Mott MacDonald was taken by PA CEO Johann Butti- gieg, and as such the responsibil- ity for due diligence rests with him. Does Schembri still have confidence in Buttigieg, despite the fact that he did not inform her of the potential conflict? "There are two things to bear in mind: one, the work done by Mott Macdonald on Mercury House was done via the architect Zara Hadid. From what we were told at the planning committee, it concerned mechanical engi- neering work within one branch of Mott MacDonald. It is a large organisation employing 16,000 people. There are Chinese walls between the departments; they all know who they're working for, but not the nitty gritty of what each section is working on... in any case their advice was confined to the infrastructural aspect only." That may be so, but they were still paid for their consultancy work, and there is still clearly a rapport between Mott MacDon- ald and Mercury House... "The second consideration is that the initial expression of in- terest was done by the Planning Authority; the PA dealt with everything that had to do with Mott MacDonald and Broadway Manning [an architectural firm also contracted by the PA]. The government is independent of the PA, and vice versa. So when negotiations were going on, the government was not aware of the exact situation. The way I see it, Johann Buttigieg had a call to make, and he made it. It was within his remit to take a deci- sion at a point when he knew the situation. In my opinion, he was not obliged to tell the gov- ernment, at that point, that Mott MacDonald had given advice to Mercury House..." But shouldn't he have informed the government anyway? Schem- bri herself didn't know about it when she presented the master- plan. It proved to be an embar- rassment for her government. And isn't it an important con- sideration, given that the peo- ple drawing up the plan were on the payroll of one of the leading property speculators in the area? "The PA is autonomous, they take their own decisions inde- pendently of the government. This autonomy comes with benefits, but sometimes also with drawbacks. We cannot expect to have autonomy from each other, and take the ben- efits without the drawbacks. So when something like this happens, we don't ask: 'why didn't you tell us?' That's what autonomy means..." It also means that no one takes responsibility. As a re- sult of this decision – and oth- er factors – the resulting mas- terplan has to go back to the drawing board. To be brutally honest, it was a fiasco. Are we to understand that everything will simply carry on as if noth- ing happened? "No, quite the other way round. We are not carrying on as if nothing has happened. We will be reviewing the sub- missions to date. But with all respect you are the one saying it was a conflict of interest. Sincerely, I don't see the con- flict you are claiming. You are stating premises as if they are facts, when they are not. Mott MacDonald had nothing to do with any of the towers in the masterplan, including Mercury House... so how can they have come up with a masterplan that favours Mercury House, when they have nothing to do with the towers?" But it's not just about towers. The masterplan overrides a de- velopment brief issued in 2005, which had proposed a public square on the Mercury House project site. The new plan trans- fers this square to the site of St George's Park: which belongs to someone else, and is home to several residents. The same plan even proposes expropria- tion of private property for this purpose... Schembri here interjects: "I need to clarify the expropriation issue. But go on..." ...and the net result is that the Mercury House site will substan- tially increase in value. So if this plan is enacted, one developer will benefit enormously at the expense of others. And Mott MacDonald happens to be his client. Meanwhile, I haven't even touched on the fact that Franco Mercieca, the government MP chairing the parliamentary com- mittee, actually owns a stake in the same project... "OK, let's take a step back. The PA, which is autonomous, took a decision, which we got to know about recently... and the people are concerned. I understand this; I am concerned too, because I don't want people to think that a masterplan like this – which benefits the whole area – was the result of anything improper. Now: what is the government doing? We are saying: let's have a review of this decision, just to put everyone's minds at rest. Not necessarily because I believe there is a conflict of interest: that's irrelevant. I want people to be reassured that nothing bad went on in the background..." The masterplan, she reminds me, is still in draft form. "It still needs to pass through a sieve: more public consultations, where people can tell us what they feel about it, and how it can be changed. Entrepreneurs are not happy with it either; we need to listen to them too. But this was obvious, because when you have a first draft of anything, you have to start with the site itself... then you start fitting in what people want, as part of the puzzle. When you have a clearer picture, you try to see how the objectives of the masterplan can be intermeshed with people's expectations, to get a good final product." This, she adds, is why a nine- week consultation period is needed. "I am encouraging peo- ple to come forward, not just with what they don't like about the plan, but also how they think Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2016 Expropriation means government taking private land for a public purpose. This is not a public purpose; it's part of a comprehensive development. So nobody will leave their home unless they agree to What I'm saying is this: tall buildings will happen. Progress will happen. Development will happen. Let's not allow it to happen haphazardly EXPROPRIATION PLANNING Much ado about a Paceville