In a reply to our editorial dated October 12, the Planning Authority described its actions in the Porziuncola House case as containing “incorrect” information.
It clarifies that “appeals” are heard in front of the Planning Tribunal, a body supposedly independent of the authority, and that the Porziuncola House sitting was a “request for invocation of article 80 of the Development Planning Act”.
This is correct but, like the rest of the letter, wilfully misses the point of our editorial.
The Planning Tribunal is led by Joseph Borg, up until recently a PA employee seconded to it for five years.
Current CEO Martin Saliba had held the same position on the tribunal, consistently infuriating activists and residents with his decisions.
This results in a PA employee deciding on cases involving his employer. How this blatant conflict of interest guarantees the tribunal’s “full independence” from the authority is a mystery.
It must also be noted that, unless they’ve filed an objection, residents, such as those living near Porziuncola House, cannot appeal any PA decision. The Madliena residents failed to appeal simply because the site notices were not visible, also the authority’s responsibility.
While the PA’s lecture in technicalities, procedures and regulations is welcome, the end result of the Porziuncola saga – whether one blames the PA or the tribunal – is that the residents have been robbed of their right to redress and quality of life. This has happened countless other times around Malta.
Suspicions that the PA and tribunal are in full collusion are entirely justified.
In its letter, the PA also contests the assertion that board members are yes-people without experience in planning matters. Half of the board, it says, is made up of “periti and planners”. What is not mentioned is that the PA chair is Emanuel Camilleri, an accountant with experience in privatisation, finance and engineering but not planning.
He replaced a seasoned planner, the respected Vince Cassar.
Most board members are appointed by the government and their voting patterns on controversial projects rarely stray from those of Labour representatives. We challenge the PA to publish detailed statistics related to the votes of its board members, information that would otherwise require weeks of digging through raw data.
The PA also declared that developer Joseph Portelli’s Sannat permit was “referred to the executive council for advice on the interpretation of a policy” and that this was “correct procedurally”. However, the spokesperson refrained from quoting the specific procedure invoked by the planning commission. Similarly, it is not known who is responsible for this “advice”.
An FOI request made by Moviment Graffitti in March, requesting the correspondence between Saliba and Portelli, was turned down “because the PA does not hold this information”. This is unusual. The authority and its auditors should have a copy of such communications.
The PA’s letter gives away a certain nervousness at the mention of accountability, personal liability and the risk of legal action, which, so far, has seldom if ever been initiated against individuals in the authority.
Far from “insinuations”, the facts mentioned in the editorial are commonplace occurrences at the PA, covered by journalists for decades.
It is clear that what is on paper is either not being enforced or is blatantly designed to favour developers and applicants over residents and objectors.
Our editorial wasn’t the first of “serious allegations” being made against the PA and its members. The authority now ought to reply with equal diligence to statements issued by civil society organisations on individual developments and to clarify its selectivity in enforcement of planning illegalities and policy blunders highlighted in the course of their work.