We were recently told by the Nationalist Party that the Labour Party is ‘rich’ and, for this reason, is in a position to source a continuous billboard campaign. The PN, according to the same sources, is in dire need of financial assistance to sustain a similar campaign.
If that is truly the case, then the PN should seriously delve deeper into the issue and see whether any traditional beneficiaries have distanced themselves from the party and, possibly, moved to ‘non traditional’ territories.
In truth, the PL has been in reaction mode over the last months, even though the Prime Minister insisted that we should enjoy summer. Nonetheless, in an attempt to signal its presence and trigger what seems to be the beginning of a ‘fear strategy’ campaign, the PN mounted its first in a series of billboard messages, echoing the idea that Joseph Muscat’s Labour is associated with the pre-1987 era characterised by massive unemployment and reliance on social services.
The billboard takes the cue from a landmark UK Conservative billboard, showing people queuing for unemployment benefits.
Labour strategists quickly reacted within 24 hours and came up with a series of seven counter designs showing people queuing to have a job at SmartCity or awaiting their turn at Mater Dei Hospital after spending hours waiting.
Another Labour billboard shows people waiting to have their planning permit approved after three years. It does not say that these people are waiting to have their planning application processed. It clearly says these applicants had their permit not issued after three years.
Presumably, their planning application was submitted, duly processed and turned down.
In reality, applicants are no longer concerned with having their application processed within reasonable times because more than 95 per cent of all applications are, thanks to Environment Minister Mario de Marco’s recent reform, processed in less than a year.
Nonetheless, Labour is correct to state that several applicants are not happy with the outcome of their planning decision.
Certainly, cases that may not be justified by reason of environmental considerations are likely to remain. On the other hand, several applications that have been turned down in recent years could reasonably be approved without causing any environmental damaging or inconvenience to neighbouring residents.
Although planning decision makers, including the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s own CEO, continue to show genuine concern, their efforts are many a time stifled by outdated and conflicting policies. As things stand, for example, current policies discourage the demolition of derelict farm buildings in the countryside with a view to introduce agro tourism facilities.
Local Plan policies are too restrictive to allow any possible regeneration within old village cores supported by the introduction of alternative commercial uses. In certain cases, imposed guarantees and associated monitoring costs are too hefty, as a result of which, permits remain unissued.
In most cases, it is a nightmare for farmers and livestock breeders to have their applications approved.
More significantly, interpretative considerations emanating from court decisions are not immediately taken on board. For example, even though a number of landmark court decisions has taken Mepa to task for simply acting as a checklist instead of taking into consideration any circumstantial commitment in line with the provisions stipulated in the law, decision-making bodies continue to ignore such basic legal principle.
As I stated repeatedly over the last 10 years, decision-makers remain more inclined towards adopting a safer approach in the fear that any opting for discretion would be tantamount to public criticism.
This is what Labour should look into.
The author is an architect by profession with a focus on planning law