Environment ombudsman slams ‘unrealistic’ planning reform
A reform is welcome, but the proposed bills leave a lot to be desired, the commissioner said
The planning and environment commissioner has slammed the government’s proposed planning reform, describing several planned measures as unrealistic and “potentially oppressive,” in a formal response to the ongoing consultation.
Although a reform to Malta’s planning laws is welcome, it must lead to a system that is fair and enforceable, architect Alan Saliba, the commissioner for environment and planning in the ombudsman’s office, said.
For a start, the deadlines imposed on the planning tribunal to decide on a planning appeal are “unrealistic” and “presumptuous,” the ombudsman’s report warns.
The same applies to the three-month deadline for the court decisions, which is described as “unreasonably strict”.
Attached files
Saliba also described plans to regularise ODZ developments against a fine as “unjust and unsustainable”.
“Regularisation should never replace proper enforcement,” Saliba wrote, calling for authorities to increase the current maximum fines of €50,000, not just the daily cap, for ODZ infringements.
Adopting this approach would reinforce the rule of law and shift attitudes “away from the normalisation of irregular development”.
The ombudsman also criticised a proposal which would allow the Planning Authority to deviate from existing planning laws and policies.
“Departures from established plans should not be allowed arbitrarily,” Saliba said.
Planning minister Clint Camilleri has since pledged to withdraw the contentious clause.
Saliba called on the Building and Construction Authority to play a greater role in the construction process, introducing specific construction timeframes to minimise the impact on residents.
A proposed clause exempting reversible and temporary structures from a planning permit should include a proviso that they do not exceed the area’s height limitations and are not visible from any road within a 100m span, Saliba said.
Meanwhile, any decision to deem an appeal as vexatious or frivolous must be open to review.
Saliba noted that the bills presented in parliament last month “failed to incorporate” several measures proposed by the ombudsman’s office two years ago. These included setting up a new tribunal to handle third-party appeals and introducing rewards for successful appellants.
“The Commissioner was neither involved in the drafting process nor consulted” before the bills were presented to parliament, Saliba noted.