When the Planning Authority comes up in conversation or in the media, people do not prick up their ears in expectation of hearing good news. Its reputation is in the mud, as always. The results of poor planning are manifest all around us.

Everyone is sick to the back teeth of this entity. It is pointless to even complain about it any longer. It is hopeless and beyond redemption.

Yes, sure, there are some good and competent persons struggling to do their job properly within it. Rescuing them and their skills is just another good reason to take drastic action to reinvent the malignant structures within which they are obliged to work.

When this toxic monster lands on the lap of a new government minister, he or she must inevitably depend upon the advice and expertise of those operating within it. With their long-standing history of overseeing and enabling disasters, this is unfortunate but cannot be wholly avoided. Any initial ministerial optimism hoping to reform the system will soon be dampened by the jaded attitudes and lack of forward planning s/he will have to confront every day.

There are some key opportunities where the minister can appoint external, relatively objective persons, bringing in some fresh ideas or expertise and untainted by the rotten core of the entity. There is good sense behind the idea that people in key strategic or senior management positions should not occupy their seats for too long. This also applies to politics. A new broom sweeps clean.

Unfortunately, this opportunity is often wasted or misused, possibly to score short-term points. Let’s take an example. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal is intended to be an independent body, entrusted with reviewing decisions of the Planning Authority. Appeals are generally brought before it by individuals who have been denied a permit, or by objecting NGOs, or even by government environment and heritage authorities that disagree with a decision of the planning boards.

Yet, rather than appointing independent persons to ensure that the tribunal keeps good check on decisions taken by the planning staff and boards, our politicians have instead, twice in a row, appointed employees from the Planning Authority itself to chair this tribunal. Once their terms as chairmen are up, they can return to their employer for the rest of their working lives.

A perceived conflict of interest undoubtedly exists. NGOs are exasperated. This is not about whether the chairmen in question are competent or objective or not. They may well be but that is not the point. Such incestuous situations make people lose trust in the system.

It is self-evident that encouraging such overlapping relationships between the tribunal and the Planning Authority is loaded. One of these tribunal chairmen has since returned to his employer, now as Planning Authority executive chairman. In other words, he was awarded the top job by the same employer that appeared in front of him and to which he remained attached throughout his stint at the tribunal.

The political justification given so far is that, since the Planning Authority itself does not issue a salary to the chairmen or members of the tribunal, there is no conflict. As though loyalties only depend on immediate payments of money. People are not that stupid.

The Planning Authority is hopeless and beyond redemption- Petra Caruana Dingli

At the University of Malta, for example, as examiner or supervisor, you are considered to have some kind of ‘dual or multiple relationship’ with a student if you are closely related or associated, but also if there exist “promises to enter into another relationship in the future following conclusion of studies with the student or a person closely associated with or related to the student”. 

Is it the politicians pulling the strings or the staff within the system who are responsible for the mess at planning? It is a chicken-or-the-egg kind of question.

The existing planning structures are too far gone for a makeover or reform. The Planning Authority is clearly not up to the task it is entrusted with and, most likely, it never will be. Politicians and all stakeholders must put their heads together, take a blank slate and start afresh.

That tunnel again

Plans to build a road tunnel for cars underneath the Gozo channel continue to ferment. The idea of influencing the decision through a referendum or consultative vote among Gozitans was also floated again. That does not seem very likely right now but, in any case, it seems fundamentally unfair to restrict the vote to residents of Gozo.

Firstly, it is a national project. Any tunnel will have long-term environmental and social impacts that affect Malta too. Moreover, the road tunnel would destroy the landscape at Pwales, in St Paul’s Bay. Why would the residents of St Paul’s Bay and Mellieħa be excluded from having their say in a vote?

The Gozo district pulls its weight in national elections. It would, of course, be handy for politicians to be sure about whether they are actually going to please the majority of Gozitans or not when they take this big and costly decision. They would get the backing they need, either way, as there may well be significant opposition to any final decision.

Bernard Grech has called for the tunnel decision to be taken in the context of a national strategy on development in Gozo, considering aspects like quality, environment and aesthetics.

That is a welcomed idea. The importance of good connectivity to Gozo is undisputed. Any Gozo strategy should,  however, also consider the impact that would be caused by hordes of cars descending on Gozo from Malta through a road tunnel.