ODZ is ODZ... or is it?

According to some pundits, the impending changes to the legislation concerning the Malta Environment and Planning Authority will make it impossible for it to sanction any illegal development in areas outside development zones (ODZ).

I think this would be a panicky and shortsighted reaction to hysterical complaints and allegations: an unnecessary draconian move that would lead to unwarranted situations rather than to desired results.

One of the prevailing myths about the Structure Plan is that it allows no development in areas designated as ODZ. This is simply a distortion of the truth. The Structure Plan designates areas for urban development and others for industrial development, while indicating the rest of our territory as ODZ. This means that other types of development, that are not what one would expect in designated urban or industrial zones, are allowed in ODZ areas.

Foremost among these, one finds all kinds of development related to agricultural and animal breeding purposes as well as development related to utility networks that must necessarily pass through ODZ areas. But this is by no means all that can be allowed in ODZ areas, and there can never be an exhaustive list of what could be allowed, however hard anyone might try.

Many of our hotels, for example, are situated in ODZ areas. One of the landmark decisions taken by the Planning Appeals Board concerned the construction of stables. These could not be considered as urban development by any stretch of the imagination and hence the Appeals Board concluded that they could be permitted in ODZ areas.

Basically, anything that is out of place in an urban development area and is not of an industrial nature could be allowed in an ODZ area. This does not mean that it should automatically be permitted without due consideration to several other factors, including environmental issues; but the term ODZ certainly does not mean that no development permits should be issued for sites in such areas.

There were several valid reasons that militated against the issue of the notorious Mistra open-air disco permit, but the simple fact that the site was ODZ was not one of them. After all, I don't think that there is anyone in his - or her - right mind who thinks that such a development should be within an urban development area. Would anyone who does not mind an open air disco next to his home please speak up - excluding those who consciously went to live in an ODZ area while expecting to benefit from the 'neighbourliness' parameters of urban development zones. Those people made a choice freely and have to accept the consequences of their decision.

The notion that the process of sanctioning illegal development in ODZ areas should be different from that of sanctioning illegal development in other areas is tantamount to admitting failure.

Enacting laws with draconian provisos as a result of the legislators' lack of faith in the discretion of those who are entrusted to apply the laws is the worst motive imaginable for legislation. Such legislation ends up treating all transgressions of the law in the same manner, irrespective of the seriousness of it. It is as if the criminal code were to make no distinction between bodily harm and grievous bodily harm or as if a confessor is not allowed the discretion to distinguish between venial and mortal sins because he could act irresponsibly.

Imagine a hotel that changes its garden layout; or a farmer who rehabilitates his rubble walls; or a pig breeder who makes a minor alteration to his pig-farm: all without the necessary permit. These are instances when illegal development could and would normally be sanctioned. Should the law treat these cases in the same manner as a person who illegally builds a villa in a scenic and environmentally sensitive area, because all transgressors are to be considered as equally guilty? This is utter nonsense.

I digress to make an interesting parallel. Many moons ago, the government (of which I formed part) enacted a law whereby anyone who imports any amount of illicit drugs into Maltese territory was declared guilty of drug trafficking, for which there was a minimum of six months' imprisonment. The reason for this law was simply that the legislator had lost confidence in the courts' sensible use of their discretionary powers. Nonsense ensued. A Swiss tourist who had a cannabis joint found herself sentenced to six months in prison because the court had to find her guilty of drug trafficking and give her the minimum applicable sentence.

At the same time, Malta was spending money to attract tourists from Switzerland and other countries where owning a joint of cannabis is not even a minor transgression of the law. Yet for the law as it stood in Malta, that tourist was a drug trafficker!

Did that law, in fact, decrease drug trafficking? No. It was just a panicky reaction that led to more negative consequences than positive results.

The legislators had gone overboard and had to retract their steps.

Apparently we never learn.

micfal@maltanet.net