The Kamra tal-Periti recently issued a set of guidelines for the design of developments close to megalithic temples.
This comes in the wake of a contentious application for the construction of 27 apartments at a distance of 150 metres away from the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Ġgantija.
These guidelines impose limits on the types of developments to be proposed in the vicinity of these sites and provide technical direction on the building materials to be used.
Interestingly, this is the first such measure undertaken by the KTP in relation to UNESCO buffer zones.
While it is commendable for the chamber to proactively institute these guidelines, this newest nod to self-regulation raises a few questions.
Firstly, it gives away a deep-seated diffidence in the Planning Authority’s efforts to execute its mandate and protect such sites. In spite of numerous policies that govern every aspect of planning, these are dribbled with relative ease by applicants and their architects, who have to carry equal responsibility for the buildings and their design.
The PA’s lack of interest to enforce even its most basic principles plays into the hands of the private interests whose biggest legacy is an incongruous skyline dotted with blank walls.
The belief that developers or landowners are free to build whatever they like as long as they own the land is reinforced by several decisions taken by the three-person commissions, where developments are subject to much lesser scrutiny and where local councils, heritage groups and other NGOs have no vote.
But if the regulator cannot enforce the law, how will the KTP impose this directive?
Three years after Miriam Pace’s death, the architects responsible for the tragedy can still practise freely; KTP president Andre Pizzuto stated that the chamber is conducting its own investigation but this had stalled because of delays in obtaining the magisterial inquiry report.
Should the KTP undertake disciplinary action towards an architect caught in breach of this directive, it would be subject to the possibility of preventive or retaliatory legal action.
This would inevitably delay any revocation of the warrants and tie the KTP’s hands until the courts take their final decision, appeals included.
Lastly, self-regulation has proven itself to be a complete failure. Intense lobbying by the Malta Developers Association has led to widespread deregulation in past years. Greater liberties to big business have resulted in complete libertarianism on building sites and, in concurrence with the creation of a flimsy Building and Construction Authority, more deaths.
For all the KTP’s good intentions, some of its members are renowned not for their prowess to design sustainably and in harmony with the surroundings but for doubling up as lobbyists for developers seeking to flaunt the rules. It is no secret that some architects are big cogs in machinations to bypass planning and zoning regulations. Others take up the role of mentors, while others, as the shameful Fleur-de-Lys incident demonstrates, are neck-deep in various conflicts of interest.
Perhaps the KTP – which in itself is also a lobby group – should be setting up its own registry of architects, which the public can freely access and make informed decisions about who to hire.
This registry should highlight past accidents or breaches of policies as well as any governmental roles, both official or consultancy.
While the authorities have given up on enforcing, the KTP should not pledge to regulate its own defaulting members if the accidents of three years ago are still effectively unpunished. It should, however, offer citizens information to combat the omertà with which planning and construction misdeeds are normalised.