The term ODZ (outside development zone) is not simply a description of land that falls outside development boundaries. In essence, it is a legal term applied to those areas where, by law, no development can take place unless it is absolutely necessary for agricultural use, mineral extraction or to service nature parks. The implication is that any such development must be of a non-urban form and of a temporary nature.
It is not clear to me if this term (ODZ) still applies today in its legal sense and context now that the Structure Plan is being retired and no equivalent body of policies is taking its place. I was always thought that the Structure Plan is the supreme development law of the land out of which all subsidiary plans emanate (including the local plans).
Incidentally, it is also not clear to me if it is possible to have local plans, which are, by definition, subsidiary to the Structure Plan, now that the Structure Plan is no more.
If ODZ still means what I always thought it did, it is nonsense and a contradiction in terms to say that it is legitimate to allow certain land uses to occur ODZ whenever such uses are deemed incompatible with urban zones.
In cases where the need arises for the construction of a specialised facility that, of its nature, must be some distance away from residential areas (say, an atomic power station, a rocket-launching space station, a sewage treatment plant or even a fireworks factory) then the correct procedure that should be followed is to first and foremost make a case to justify the need for changing the development boundaries and in the process obtain Parliament’s approval to transform part of an ODZ into a development area.
The frequent capitulation of Mepa has always been the biggest weakness of our planning system
The implications here are that changing the development boundaries is a matter of national importance and that all development of an urbanising nature can only be constructed within a development zone. So, assuming the term ODZ still means what it used to, no subsidiary plan or policy, old or new, must be allowed to obfuscate or water down these clear and fundamental principles. We violate this at the peril of our children and their children in turn.
The frequent capitulation of Mepa, often under extreme pressure brought to bear by private individuals and politicians on its officials, resulting in the granting of lucrative permits ODZ, has always been the biggest weakness of our planning system. Any moves to reform the system must therefore address this problem.
Our existing planning regime, introduced in the early 1990s, was modelled round existing systems abroad. These systems generally allow elected representatives from all sides to have a direct say in planning decisions.
In this way, the input of particular politicians in specific decisions is more open to public scrutiny. However, in our case, the system was deliberately designed in such a way that left very little space for politicians to get officially involved in the decision-making, including and especially the granting of permits.
Now we all know how crucially important development permits and land use policies are to all of us.
It is obvious, in retrospect, that it was not reasonable or sustainable to expect politicians to accept to refrain from interfering in such issues.
In my view, this organisational design fault has resulted in a gross distortion of our planning regime. The painful facts have proved this many times over in the past 25 years.
The solution, as has been suggested in his eloquent, if colourful, way by my friend and former colleague Ivan Fenech in his contribution to this paper (but also by others previously), could be that the House Environment Committee (HEC), suitably financed and resourced, would fill the role of the present Mepa board.
The HEC will decide on all issues relating to planning including all development applications. The resulting workloads could be managed by delegating most applications to various sub-committees but always maintaining an overseeing role over them.
The crucial role of these proposed sub-committees is today filled by the EPCs (previously the DCCs). However, in today’s reality these commissions operate with almost total autonomy from the Mepa board. Bringing such decisions directly under the umbrella of the HEC will ensure consistency in decision-making, something which is sometimes lacking in the present system.
In the scenario being proposed, the Directorate of Planning will report directly to the HEC and will provide it with the necessary technical support. In itself, this move will free directorate employees from the political bondage they are subject to today and will allow them to do their work in the most serene and professional manner possible.
The recent work done, in public, by the House Environment Committee has been most impressive and commendable and it proves that the proposal mentioned above can work.
One should note as well that the media were ‘all ears’ for what was being said and done during the sittings. This in itself provides the checks and balances necessary to ensure good decision-making.
The HEC has the mandate, the gravitas and the right credentials to ensure that decisions related to land use planning are truly made in the common interest and for the overall public good.
Chris Falzon is a former chairman of the planning authority.