The Nationalist Party is no longer contesting the move to split the Malta Environment and Planning Authority into two entities but is worried the move will be “relegating the environment to second division”.
“The issue here is not the separation between the two arms. The issue here is that a balance is achieved between the two,” the Opposition spokesman on planning, Ryan Callus, said yesterday.
Mr Callus said the PN did not agree with the government’s proposal to allow revisions to Mepa’s main strategic plan and to the local plans at will, arguing that such schemes should have long-term vision and not be subject to constant change.
He said the PN was seriously concerned that the minister responsible for planning would have the power to regularise buildings that did not conform to the law. “This is a style which goes back to old politics, where a political person is given increased powers through removing procedures, controls and transparent safeguards that are required in a modern democratic country.”
The government was proposing that the members of the Appeals Tribunal board are appointed by the Prime Minister. The PN strongly opposed this, suggesting instead that the tribunal should be set up under the Administrative Justice Act, which would include a magistrate and a procedure through which two other experts would be appointed.
The Appeals Tribunal, Mr Callus continued, should be transparent and independent.
The government proposed the removal of schedule six, which was originally included as a deterrent for people who decided to build illegally outside development zones or on scheduled buildings with historical value.
“By removing schedule six, the government is sending out the message that it’s acceptable to build illegally in the countryside because it will be possible to sanction that illegality,” Mr Callus said.
He referred to a proposal to allow the scheduling of a building to be revised after a period of 10 years, arguing that there should be safeguards discouraging people from neglecting the site in the hope that the building’s dilapidation would help void the scheduling.
The Opposition spokesman on the environment, Charlo Bonnici, said the amendments proposed were not changes for the better but would take Malta backwards. He expressed concern that the environment would only be represented by one vote on the board taking important planning decisions. The strength of the environment authority would be weakened.
In case of decisions where the environmental arm disagreed with a particular permit, its only option would be to appeal. However, appealing should be the exception and not the rule, Mr Bonnici added.
Moreover, he continued, the environment authority would be excluded from devising planning policy that was considered in the executive council.
“Is this the way to strike a balance between the environment and planning,” he asked.
Mr Bonnici noted that in the government’s proposals there was no mention of enforcement.
“Who will be enforcing against the negative impact on the environment through development, water table use and the use of fossil fuels,” he asked.