During a recent hearing, the Planning Authority turned down an appeal by Madliena residents against the rebuilding of a former retreat home, the Porziuncola House, into a six-storey care facility.

The objectors argued the permit was granted on the basis of incorrect information, with many not aware of the application since the developer had not affixed any notices on-site.

The six-storey building will dwarf the surrounding two-storey zone and, presumably, open up the area for further development since it also sets a precedent. The architect, Colin Zammit, is one of Malta’s most prolific architects, especially in ODZ applications. In this case, he and his client have shown no regard for aesthetics, let alone care for the surrounding community.

Developments such as this are only made possible by the PA’s complicity. This is not the first time that the “regulator” has behaved in this manner towards objectors, without even making the tiniest of efforts to ensure a fair process. For example, in spite of the media furore and protests from activists and residents, the PA recently greenlighted another controversial development by Joseph Portelli in Sannat, with the planning board bending rules and protocols to obtain a “recommendation” from the executive board, which has no say on individual applications. Naturally, the permit was approved.

In the Porziuncola case, the old retreat house had already been demolished and the first floor of the new care home built by the time the appeal was heard. This, together with the stealth with which the developer applied for the permit, signalled a clear intention to refuse the residents’ appeal. This leads to legitimate doubts as to whether the permit’s issue was a foregone conclusion from the very start.

News that the developer will pay €30 million over 65 years seems to confirm the thoughts of many, that the PA is always available to rubber-stamp such monstrosities because the priority is to safeguard developers’ investments.

Again, this is not the first such case: government authorities and agencies have been known to ignore pending appeals and continue works. Infrastructure Malta has been a serial offender in this field, repeatedly ignoring pending appeals and going on to pulverise agricultural land for new roads, without owners given the possibility of seeking redress.

In this context, the post-electoral period has only made matters worse. The new boards appointed at the PA seem once again to be filled with yes-people, some of who have no experience in planning.

The PA is one of a constellation of authorities that refuse to enforce their own regulations.

That some entities are understaffed is also down to the government’s decision to allow a regulatory free-for-all as a means to kick-start the economy. This policy has proven detrimental to the quality of life of thousands of citizens, whose discontent and cynicism is starting to show in the government’s own surveys on the environment.

There is no silver bullet for planning in Malta but widespread abuse by the authorities can be curbed by holding individuals responsible for their decisions and the way they vote.

This would be a serious deterrent for key PA personnel whose actions have major impacts upon the country and its communities: a scenario where board members, case officers, senior executives, consultants and the CEO himself would be subjected to public scrutiny and would have to watch their steps.

The introduction of personal liability would put an end to much of the not-so-hidden manoeuvring at the PA. It is clear, though, that the government would rather look the other way.