Malta nightmare 2035

When the only rebuttal that one can make in an argument is that the other party either does not understand or is in bad faith, it is clear that one has no rational rebuttals available. The truth is that we have all understood perfectly well what the objectives of the proposed amendments to the planning regulations are.

One only has to listen to a major developer’s complaints, during a recent debate with Andre Callus, to have them listed out. All are addressed by the proposed amendments.

We have been regaled by the statistics that 75% of applications are from first-time applicants and that, therefore, the proposed amendments protect the ‘small’ developers. We should have been given statistics of how many developments proposed by first-time applicants were objected to by us, as eNGOs that continuously monitor applications submitted. And how many first-time applicants have had their development permits revoked by the courts? Has this not only happened with the big developments and the big developers?

The narrative of ‘small’ developers, pushed by the Malta Development Association (MDA) and politicians alike, is a complete red herring and is intrinsically irrelevant.

If the couple, mentioned recently, who had a permit for an apartment revoked by the court had bought this apartment from a developer, who knew that his permit was under an appeal challenge and did not so warn them, then my Thesaurus says that the applicable word is ‘fraud’. If they knew about the appeal challenge and bought it anyway, then they gambled and lost. The story of the old man and his room in the field is also another irrelevant sob story. If everyone who has a field built a room to satisfy their heart’s desires, then Malta would really look pretty!

In any case, it is not the role of the Planning Authority to ‘protect’ the interests of ‘small’ developers. The role, as outlined in the Development Planning Act, is to act as an agent of the government’s duty “to enhance the quality of life for the benefit of the present and future genera­tions” – that is, all of us.

The MDA, and the prime minister, promote the narrative that Malta is divided into two, develo­pers on one side and objectors on the other side, with the Planning Authority acting as some sort of referee, trying to keep a balance. This is completely false.

The division is between citizens who are concerned about the “quality of life for the benefit of present and future generations”, and demand regulations to ensure that this be achieved and insist that such regulations are enforced, and, on the other side, those who fret against these ‘bureaucratic’ regulations because they inhibit their ability to make money.

If the Planning Authority did its job properly we NGOs would not even need to exist- Alex Torpiano

If the Planning Authority did its job properly, on behalf of the whole community, we NGOs would not even need to exist. We only exist because the authority is not fulfilling its statutory role.

I do not intend to delve into the details of the proposals because it would take too much time. However, there are two points that need highlighting.

The proposed reform demands that, when submitting an objection, one will have to write out in technical detail which policy the objection is based on, even before the application is processed. As Din l-Art Ħelwa, we always do this. But, now, there is a catch. If the authority is authorised to change policies by means of a guideline, or to supersede the local plans by means of a simple circular, we will not even have the certainty of any policy or plan on which to base an objection. It is as if, during a football match, the referee changes the rules as he feels like!

The other beauty is the threat to fine a “frivolous” appellant to the tune of €5,000; this is clearly intended to have a chilling effect on objectors. Who will decide that an appeal is frivolous – the same entity that is being appealed against?

The ultimate gaffe is the failure of the authority to consult with anybody except MDA and the Chamber of Architects (as the minister was reported as saying). The glib explanation for this, given by the Planning Authority CEO, and repeated by the prime minister, is that the authority wanted to keep information from the public to guard against land speculation.

Of course, eNGOs are known for their propensity for land speculation, certainly not like the members of the MDA who would never speculate on land!

The prime minister has now “conceded” that, of course, the government will discuss and consult. It has to be pointed out that consultation on environmental legislation and policies is mandatory in terms of the Aarhus Convention and not a ‘concession’ made after a strong reaction by civil society.

So much for the nice statements about well-being and the environment in the Vision for Malta for 2050 – unless this is what they mean by ‘citizen-centred’ urban planning. Some developer-citizens must be more citizen than others.

The only way forward from this botched affair is for the government to withdraw the bills presented in parliament and to start again.

This time, in good faith.

Alex Torpiano is a council member of Din l-Art Ħelwa.