Government 'bypassing' planning process

The Malta Chamber of Planners has raised major objections to the planned extension of the development boundaries, saying it failed to understand the planning rationale behind this exercise.

In a statement, the Chamber said it could not understand why such a large number of sites within the development boundary had been included.

"It is clear that most of the criteria do not reflect the public interest but those of individuals or organisations."

It was clear that through this exercise the government was by-passing and pre-empting the planning process as established by the 1992 Development Planning Act, the Chamber said.

The process whereby the government itself set the criteria and proposed sites and then placed the onus on the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to identify other sites fitting with the criteria already set, was certainly not the way planning is to be conceived.

The MCP said it was not against the principle that the government should participate actively in development plan and planning policy formulation and ultimately assume ownership of plans and policies.

However, this should be done in a transparent manner which was clearly prescribed in the law.

Being the competent regulatory authority as well as government's advisor on matters concerning spatial development planning and policy, Mepa should be provided with the space to formulate its advice independently and without any form of political pressure.

"How can the government state, at this stage, that not more than 10 per cent of the submissions will be accepted? It is not the number which matters... but the actual nature and land-take of the sites being included and the total area these would amount to."

This process would trigger additional pressures for the inclusion of new land, something that Malta had already experienced before the planning authority was set up, with disastrous consequences on the environment and landscape.

Potential supply exceeded projected demand by more than double, the Chamber said.

"This is certainly not a rationalisation exercise, particularly where the government has gone against its own criteria."

A case in point was the area between Safi and Zurrieq which would result in the coalescence of these two localities, something which the criteria put forward by the government itself sought to avoid.

The MCP pointed out that criteria should be based on the public interest and not social justice. Mepa should also draw the public's attention that planning decisions should be justified in the public interest and not in connection with problems of individuals or individual organisations.

The manner in which the criteria were being applied retroactively only to submissions already made during the local plan process was in itself creating another injustice with those who felt they should not make a submission since their request would not tie in with the previously established criteria.

The MCP also notes that the Cabinet's memorandum on the matter provides a means to consider any site "which may have been left out and which given some further consideration and study may be considered for inclusion in part or in whole".

Such requests will be evaluated by a committee. The MCP feels that more detail on the composition of such a committee has to be given, since its decisions will overrule planning considerations as well as open the doors to abuse.

Finally the MCP pointed out that a proper "rationalisation" exercise should also have considered exclusions from the schemes where development would seriously affect strategic planning, social and environmental concerns.

In the same way that the hasty designation of development zone boundaries in 1988 created anomalies in terms of excluding developable land on no clear basis, similarly there were blatant cases where land should not have been included in the first place.

However, apart from a couple of half-hearted exceptions, the exercise had only limited itself to inclusions, rather than objectively seeing the wider implications of the planning scheme boundaries as designated in 1988.

"The MCP feels that this is certainly not a serious way forward and this whole exercise is a regression from the positive steps made in planning in this country."