Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/963162
maltatoday SUNDAY 8 APRIL 2018 Interview 14 By Raphael Vassallo 'Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar' came into being just over 10 years ago, partly in response to the controversial 'rationalisation schemes' which expanded the development zones in 2005/6. Its name implies a concern for the 'environment' as a whole... but it is also undeniably associated with one particular aspect of environmentalism: construction and development, with an emphasis on heritage preservation. Would you agree that FAA is, effectively, a single-issue lobby group? I'd say, as an environmental group, FAA does focus on issues con- cerning urban planning, yes. But I wouldn't call that a 'single-issue'. Urban planning involves hundreds of different issues: it touches on pollution, the demolition of herit- age buildings, trying to protect open spaces, preventing urban sprawl... To us it is a major issue that has hit Malta in recent decades. People feel that Malta is changing; and ul- timately this is where we live... in our urban environment. It is not the only environmental issue that needs to be addressed, naturally; and there are other groups that are perhaps more specialised when it comes to tackling other particular issues. Our area of focus is urban planning; and I would say that it is an important one, because it has massive implica- tions for our quality of life. One peculiar aspect of urban planning in Malta is that... it doesn't seem to really exist. Time and again we are confronted with scenarios where development permits are issued by the PA, when there is no regulatory planning framework in place. For instance, the 'Paceville Masterplan': it was supposed to regulate the development parameters of Paceville... yet permits for huge construction projects (eg. Mercury House) were issued before this plan was even finalised. Would you agree with this assessment... and if so, how do you account for our collective failure to execute any proper urban planning? The Paceville Masterplan is, in fact, a good example of the general situation. Permits were coming out before the revision of the master- plan was approved and put into ac- tion: that, in itself, is proof that, yes, development is happening without any proper planning. I think there were times when things were done a little differently. The Structure Plan was an effort to break with that pattern; it had a vision, but it could only go so far. In fact, one of the big issues today is that existing planning laws in Malta are constantly being amended to facilitate more con- struction. There is pressure to build; and there is also the belief that con- struction is 'the way forward'... and that it is our 'right' to build. Up to a point, this is true. We're not against development per se; some parts of Malta do need to be developed; the problem is the way we go about it. Nonetheless it is a very real problem: the 'pressure to build' does not come from nowhere. Malta is under pressure to maintain a high level of economic growth. And it seems that our only strategy is to encourage more and more development, 'to keep the economic motor running'. In its defence, government points towards the thousands of jobs maintained by this sector alone. Is there any real alternative to construction as an economic strategy? How else can those jobs be guaranteed, and money generated in the country? Right now, the number of people employed by the construction sec- tor is growing, precisely because of the pressure to build. It's a vicious circle. And as a result, the quality of the workmanship seems to be go- ing down. The buildings themselves may be structurally sound – I'm not saying that they're unsafe, or about to collapse.... but when you compare today's buildings to those of the past, you get this impres- sion that the standards of design and workmanship are not as high as they used to be. And the volume of development is much higher... we are eating into green areas, and building up every square inch of the remaining open spaces in urban ar- eas. As for what can be done, we're not suggesting a moratorium on new buildings. But there needs to be an assessment of what we're do- ing, and where we're going. Is there a need to develop a certain area twice as much as it would have been developed 10 years ago? Is there re- ally a demand for it? And can we af- ford to do that in ALL development zones in Malta? Is it wise to increase population density in those areas, without investing in the necessary infrastructure? It doesn't have to be a one-sided argument – a free-for- all, versus a total halt to all construc- tion. What we're saying is, let's do things in such a way that considers tomorrow. If we're going to develop certain areas: at least, protect open spaces, and provide new ones... It sounds reasonable, but at the end of the day, most development takes place on privately owned land. To play 'the devil's architect'... why should the owner of a private plot of land build what you want him to build on it... instead of what he wants himself? It's his land... It's more a question of what the regulatory framework should allow people to build on private land. Let me give an example: there's a mas- sive area in the centre of Luqa, close to the village core and surrounded by development. Somehow, this ar- ea remained green for many years, even though it has been included in the development zone since 2006. Recently, people started applying to develop this area, and permits have started to be issued. FAA's stance was not, 'don't build at all'. It wouldn't be fair to do that: those people bought that land knowing that it could be developed. We can't go and tell them, 'don't develop it be- cause we prefer it to remain green'. But we can tell them: 'if you're go- ing to build, make sure you provide open spaces, as you should accord- ing to existing policies'. That was our stand. And I would argue that it makes sense from a business per- spective, too. Build those residential homes, by all means... but give the people who are going to live in them a decent quality of life. Don't expect them to live in pigeonholes, because you want to maximise your profit. You're still going to get that profit, but in a way that considers the peo- ple who are moving there, and the surrounding environment for eve- ryone. This is another way in which development has changed in recent years: before, people used to build their own homes, for themselves. There was pride in what they built. They wanted to identify with those buildings; to show that 'this is my home'... now, the driving force is to make a profit. And fine, people have a right to that, too. But there have to be other considerations. It can't just be all about profit. And it doesn't work for developers, either. At the end of the day: what makes your property more sellable than some- one else's? What we're saying is: make your property more valuable. Provide open spaces. It's a luxury these days. To live in a place which has an open patch of greenery and trees... it makes the area nicer. I would pay more to live there. And if I were a developer, I would invest in that: rather than just the price per square metre. We're really not saying 'don't build': we're saying, 'Build for tomorrow, not just for to- day. Think 10 years ahead... not 10 months, or 10 weeks. Don't think only about trying to sell it on plan, as quickly as possible...' Let's talk a little about how FAA is actually perceived out there. Critics of your organisation – which might include government, as well as lobby groups like the MDA At the end of the day: what makes your property more sellable than someone else's? What we're saying is: make your property more valuable. Provide open spaces. It's a luxury these days OPEN SPACES Build for tomorrow,