Planning decisions

The editorial ‘The incontinent Planning Authority’ (October 12) contains incorrect statements and provides readers with an incorrect picture.

Anyone who holds a basic knowledge of the PA’s work would tell you that it is not the remit of the Planning Board to entertain appeals on planning decisions it or one of its commissions have taken. Appeals are decided by the Appeals Tribunal and subject to an appeal before the Court of Appeal. Both institutions are of a judicial nature enjoying full independence.

The recent hearing before the Planning Board on the redevelopment of the Porziuncola House site was not an appeal but a request for invocation of article 80 of the Development Planning Act. The two procedures are not the same and one procedure is not a substitute for the other.

The procedure in article 80 of the law is called upon in exceptional cases whereby a development permit may only be revoked or modified when it is proven there is a case of ‘fraud’; ‘the submission of any information, declaration or plan which is incorrect or does not reflect the situation on site’; ‘where there is an error on the face of the record’ or for ‘public safety’.

Therefore, article 80 has specific parameters and does not give the Planning Board members the authority to reassess a planning application or evaluate whether the policies for this site were interpreted correctly. 

In addition, the editorial insinuates that the PA allowed the project to move ahead despite last month’s hearing. This statement is based on an incorrect assumption. The PA can only ‘freeze’ development permission from being executed during the 30-day period from when the development permit is published. During this period, a registered objector has the right to submit an appeal to the tribunal.

The tribunal, not the PA, is entitled to suspend works. Since there was no appeal submitted, the said rule was not applicable and,  thus, the PA acted correctly, contrary to the assertion made in the editorial. 

The editorial also calls into question the competence of the newly appointed Planning Board, suggesting members have no experience in planning matters.

Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Six of the board’s 12 members are periti and planners. Another three represent eNGOs, ERA and local councils. The new board is well-equipped and possesses the necessary expertise to ensure that development applications decisions are fair, transparent and according to planning policies.

The editorial erroneously points out that the development permit PA/02087/21 in Sannat got approved only because of the ‘bending of rules and protocols’ involving the Executive Council’. 

The Planning Commission had referred the case for advice from the council on the interpretation of policy GZ-edge 1, as the site was no longer facing ODZ. The referral was correct procedurally and far from what was stated in the editorial.

In line with the PA’s policy on transparency, matters considered during the processing and determination of a planning application are recorded as they form the basis of any decision and such information is easily accessible to the public.

The PA processes and determines planning applications in line with the planning law, irrespective of any indirect contractual obligations that may be indirectly affected and far from the rubber-stamping exercise alleged. Moreover, the authority has no competence concerning civil law matters, which must be addressed in a completely different forum.

Concerning the suggestion for the “introduction of personal liability” against employees of the PA, once decisions are taken according to law and established procedures, employees cannot be subject to such liability that already exists in the Civil Code.

While the PA fully respects the work done by journalists, prior to making serious allegations about the authority’s work and its officials, editors owe the public the duty to verify facts. 

Peter Gingell, PR and communications manager, Planning Authority, Floriana