Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti has recently annulled a Planning Authority permit through which Transport Malta was developing a capitanerie (offices and a restaurant) along the Gżira Marina and the Ta’ Xbiex promenade, following an appeal filed by Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.
Once again, the courts of law have contradicted the Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal, which had turned down the first appeal by FAA back in October. The construction of the capitanerie had already started by time the court case would reach the benches.
It’s a reel that’s been played elsewhere, and so many times. Prime Minister Robert Abela had promised to review the situation and put an end to works started under appeal but this reform has yet to see the light of day.
It is also hardly surprising that the promised reform has not made it to law. The development lobby has held meetings with Minister Clint Camilleri about the matter, seeing it has a vested interest in not slowing down the execution of planning permits.
In most cases, developers rush to commit the site to development before the appeal even reaches court stage, as is happening in Xemxija, where the demolition and excavation of the former Mistra Village is going ahead despite the pending appeal, the same development which prompted the prime minister to promise a reform.
Similarly, works under appeal have started in Mellieħa Heights, where the spectre of the NAO investigation requested by the residents may return to haunt both developer and the prime minister.
An unpleasant precedent has been possibly set by the chief justice’s reluctant decision on the Central Link fracas, where Infrastructure Malta had irremediably committed the site for the construction of the road network, forcing the court to decide with its back to the wall.
In Mellieħa too, a hotel built by Joseph Portelli is operating without a valid permit since this, too, has been revoked by the courts. This is but a minor hiccup for the developer and contravener, who may find himself paying a few thousand euros to sanction the multi-storey illegality, without risking as much as the suspension of services or clearance from the other entities involved in issuing his permit.
The court’s suspension of planning permits is not enforceable with the demolition of what are now illegal structures and, in practice, not enforceable at all. The planning system is a well-oiled machine that runs on wrong interpretations of the policies it is tasked to enforce, and it’s no surprise to see that the remedial processes are also rigged in favour of developers at every step.
The frequency of EPRT decisions being overturned in court leads to questions about the operation of the ‘independent’ tribunal, which is merely serving as another hurdle to residents and NGOs that seek environmental justice and whose spate of questionable appeals carries on independently of whoever is running it.
Interestingly, while the prime minister has moved to protect MPs and top government personnel from scrutiny through the much-maligned inquiries reform, the exact opposite is required, especially in planning.
It is unacceptable for the PA and its board members to disregard policies or intervene directly on individual applications as various CEOs have done throughout the years.
The solution here would be the introduction of personal liability for top PA personnel, including board members, the nature of whose decisions is permanent and irreversible. It is perhaps the only contemplable short-term measure that will put an end to the widespread abuse.