The Church’s Environment Commission (KA) on Saturday criticised the government’s procrastination in reviewing local plans and abandoning the Paceville Masterplan and said that planning has also taken a back seat in the case of certain government agencies.
In a critical statement, the commission expressed concern that the Planning Authority is failing to carry out its function of curbing unsustainable development on an ongoing basis.
It asked why people are shocked at the uglification of Xlendi or the destruction of the ridges in Xagħra, Gozo, noting that the root cause of all this is the lack of political will to change "the ill-advised plans and policies" that had been approved in spite of warnings from various NGOs, local councils and the commission itself.
The commission expressed concern that the Planning Authority, which has been entrusted with the function to regulate development on land, is unable to carry out regular studies which are fundamental to its core mission.
In a statement issued on the occasion of World Town Planning Day, being marked on Monday, it said this does not bode well for proper planning in the country.
The KA noted that, in recent months, several government officials have sent out a message that their hands are “tied” when it comes to changing certain development plans and policies.
This self-freezing attitude is one of choice and is not imposed on them by any legislation, it noted.
They also choose to take long in making changes to other plans and policies that they had promised to change.
“Such an attitude gives the impression that plans and policies in Malta can never change and when changed, so much time would have passed."
Choosing not to act at all or choosing not to act on time means a de facto end to planning in Malta, the commission insisted.
It asked what is the purpose of land-use planning if this is not used to provide a timely change in the direction of a country’s development, which would place the public interest and wellbeing at its heart.
“If Parliament approved the Development Planning Act in 2016 and did not want to impede politicians from carrying out positive changes that are beneficial to communities, then why are government officials choosing to adopt such a fatalistic attitude?”
Legitimate expectation
The commission added that proponents of the concept of legitimate expectation when applied to planning seem to propose that buying land should be a risk-free venture. They did not seem to acknowledge that a development plan or planning policy would need to change due to demographic, economic, social or environmental trends.
Applied to planning, this reasoning is flawed, the commission insisted.
On the concept of precedent, the commission said this does not make sense in planning since a particular development proposal cannot be compared to another one due to its intrinsic individual peculiarities.
One cannot compare one street with another or even a particular development with another one in the same street.
“Should a development permit, obtained through dubious ways, set a precedent for future similar development? In other words, should one mistake become the rule of thumb and determine a new planning policy? This would result in a hotchpotch planning approach where policy is thrown out of the window and decisions taken on the basis of precedent.”
The commission insisted that both concepts of precedent and legitimate expectations are anathemas to planning since they mean the end of planning and the absolute supremacy of perceived property rights even in the case where such rights are granted by the planning system itself.