The planning policies being proposed under the Mepa reform may result in the abuse of the environment for the benefit of the few, according to the Church’s environment commission.
The proposed reform will split the environment and planning functions of Mepa, with an Environment Resources Authority set up to handle environmental protection. The related policy documents are currently open for public consultation.
In its feedback, the Church’s environment commission expressed its concern that policies are weighing heavily in favour of developers with less consideration given to long term environmental protection for the benefit of the public. It raises seven points reflecting its major concerns.
Among those concerns is the reintroduction of the Outline Development Permit, a move that shows government learnt nothing from the Mistra development debacle, the Church commission said.
In December last year, Mepa had defended criticism for a full development permit for a 774-apartment project on Xemxija Hill by saying its hands were tied because of an existing outline development permit. Under the new Mepa proposals on the height of buildings, which would allow new development to match the height of existing buildings in the vicinity, the Church Commission said that the Mistra development would serve as a precedent to allow similar development in the area in future.
It also pointed to the undue interference being allowed to the Minister responsible for planning, which the Church commission says will invite abuse to accommodate one developer or another. The new Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) to be created will not have the power to address development abuse unless it is given a veto on the planning board.
The commission is proposing that the ERA would have a list of developments that also require a permit from the environment authority, particularly for permits to be granted in Outside Development Zones. This is important in light of comments given by Environment Minister Leo Brincat in an interview with The Sunday Times in which he admitted to not having been consulted on ODZ policy, the commission said.
It slammed the proposed elimination of the Sixth Schedule – a list of building in protected areas that could not be sanctioned – calling it “a step backwards in government commitments to eliminate development abuse”. It referred to past experience where such abusive development was then sanctioned in the “right political climate”.
The possibility that scheduled (protected) buildings could have their protection removed after 10 years was also of concern, the commission said. It also argued that the idea of introducing warning notices for illegal development prior to any stop or enforcement notices is again a step back in commitments to protect the environment from abusive development.
The Church’s environment commission appealed to government to “seriously evaluate the impacts” of its proposed environment and planning policies to ensure the best interest of the people remains paramount.