The government has intentionally set an unprecedented hierarchy in planning policies. All localities are now at risk. Photo: viewingmalta.com

A public information session on the Mepa demerger was held on July 29. Ian Stafrace and Robert Musumeci patiently fielded questions and listened to the comments made during the poorly-attended session.

This government has an electoral mandate to reform Mepa by splitting of the planning and environmental sections. Can such a clear-cut separation take place when environmental policy is a cross-cutting horizontal policy area that needs to underpin decisions related to planning?

Article 52 of the draft Development Planning Act, 2015 for the first time creates a hierarchy among the different policies and shamefully relegates the development brief to the bottom. This runs contrary to notions of subsidiarity and will seriously jeopardise the protection of urban conservation areas.

There is no logic in giving a policy precedence over another. A spatial strategy should not run contrary to a local plan, in the first place. If, exceptionally, there is ‘material conflict’ then the local plans should take precedence because they are specific to the conservation and protection required of a particular area.

Article 52 seems to be placed intentionally to undermine all the good work done under previous administrations in drawing up local plans and development briefs that ensure sustainable development in specific locations.

The implications of this new hierarchy on the application of a 40-storey hotel to be developed on the Fort Cambridge site is of particular concern.

In 2006, the highly-professional drafters of the Fort Cambridge development brief seemed to have pre-empted such a possibility arising. In fact, in article 3.9 they state that “in case of incompatibility between this development brief and any emergent plan or policy, the provisions of this development brief shall prevail”.

The reason why we should oppose any attempts through the Mepa reform to undermine it is that it is a brilliant piece of planning that takes into account the historical, natural, economic and sociological aspects of development in the area.

It indicates zones where no construction is to take place. It establishes a maximum height of 16 floors and buffer areas with lower heights. It states that there will be no additional floors beyond the third of the ex-military barracks building. There is an obligation to provide a traffic impact statement and it even outlines the conditions for tree planting as boundary treatment.

Just when we thought that a model of sustainable planning guaranteed a respectful development, there comes the present government who intentionally sets an unprecedented hierarchy in planning policies. All localities are now at risk.

There is a positive reform for representatives of local government through the initiative to include a member chosen by the local council on the Planning Board only when this is deciding a major project application.

The interpretation section of the proposed law, under “major project”, states that it “is a project as defined by regulations under this Act”. This is not a clear definition and will result in subjective interpretations of what constitutes a major project. In consultation with local councils, there needs to be a more clear definition of what constitutes a ‘major project’.

Article 99(2) of the draft law states that the minister may provide that a property in a state of disrepair and/or constitutes a danger shall be demolished by its owner or by the authority, at the owner’s expense. This law encourages owners of old properties to leave them in a state of disrepair to be then in a position to demolish the property and redevelop the land.

There is an urgent need to regulate abandoned properties prior to the stage when their deterioration has reached a point that the property constitutes a danger. This is a crucial issue on the upkeep of streetscapes that affects practically every locality in Malta with some localities such as Valletta having more acute cases.

The propaganda visuals of the Mepa demerger have a chapel surrounded by idyllic green hills with birds in the air

While recognising that the issue is a complex one, in view of multiple ownership and property rights, the Mepa reform is a golden opportunity to address the duties of the owners of all abandoned properties and, particularly, their obligations with respect to the maintenance of the outer appearance of the buildings.

The issue of abuse of chairs and tables by restaurants is not given importance in the new law. The eighth schedule of chapter 504 of the existing law, specificallyarticle 91 (V), ‘Encroachments beyond property’, provides that “development identified in this sub-category shall be removed at the request of any public authority, including the local council”.

I could not find any mention of this important tool against abuse in the new draft law. Removing this whole section of the current law is a means to water down the powers of councils to monitor abuse of encroachments.

Part VII of the draft Environment Protection Act, 2015 deals with the powers of the authority for the monitoring, compliance action and enforcement. There is no description of the inspectorate that shall undertakesuch controls. It is not clear whether the Building Regulations Office inspectorate will be amalgamated with the Environment Inspectorate.

Councils and the public need to know who they are to call both in case of infringements under this law and also in relation to other legislation, such as the Environmental Management Construction Site Regulations.

The proposed law introduces an overhaul of the current procedure for the appointment of the Planning Review Tribunal, which is rather suspicious. Under the current law, the members of the tribunal are appointed by the President on the advice of the minister. The draft law vests the Prime Minister with the authority to appoint the members sitting on the tribunal panels.

While the law in force states that the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal shall consist of members from various fields, the proposed law speaks of three members, with two members being well versed in development planning legislation and environmental legislation and the other being an advocate. Effectively, this means that the tribunal will be manned by three lawyers.

While recognising that thistribunal is a quasi-judicial body, simply having legal expertswill water down its effectiveness to view appeals in the contextof proper urban planningwhile maintaining an environmental consciousness.

The public should not be taken for a ride with statements such as “putting the environment high on the agenda”. ENGOs, particularly Din l-Art Ħelwa, have put forward many important recommendations. Whether these concerns will be addressed by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will be known in the weeks to come.

The fact that government attempted to discuss the new laws in Parliament prior to the completion of the public consultation does not augur well.

The propaganda visuals of the Mepa demerger have a chapel surrounded by idyllic green hills with birds in the air. But we all know that the Malta portrayed in such an image is a long lost nostalgia. Hopefully, the public consultation exercise will not be pure fantasy too.

paul.radmilli@gov.mt

Paul Radmilli is a PN Sliema local councillor.