Expecting the chairman of the new Environment and Resources Authority to have a deciding say on buildings in urban areas at the Planning Authority is a complete misunderstanding of the state of play following the Mepa demerger.

Victor Axiak may have missed the meeting but he had just one vote, no more and no less, when permits for high-rise in Mrieħel and at Tigné in Sliema were recently granted by the planning board. His voice carried the same weight as the rest.

True, his vote could have swayed the outcome on Townsquare, but only because of a closely divided result and not because of his position. Why focus on Axiak as the deciding factor, and not on the other seven individuals who voted in favour? Each one had equal power to change the outcome, and they were not indisposed at home as he was.

Understandably, people expect the ERA chairman to have more influence than ordinary board members, especially on projects with a huge impact on Malta, but this is not the reality. In the new system, he has no more say than any other Tom, Dick or Harry on the board.

Much has been said about planning board member Timothy Gambin’s decision to hold back Axiak’s comments on Townsquare at the meeting. This has been questioned, and rightly so. He should have read them out, but I believe it would have made not a jot of difference.

I say this because I attended the earlier meeting on Mrieħel, at which he did read out Axiak’s views. The board sat patiently for a few minutes and listened, and then carried on regardless. It is not unlikely that Axiak’s comments on Townsquare would have been ignored too. Sadly, this suggests that the new ERA has little influence over planning decisions.

The phrase ‘the environment’ is used libe­rally. Where does it begin and end? It is invoked to describe everything on the planet, both indoors and outdoors. Recyclable waste, PV panels, trees, the rural landscape or small wildflowers at Majjistral park all fall under the environment. But when people battle against high-rise in urban areas, which is quite different, they also speak of the environment.

The demerger was politically driven by a set of people with absolutely no interest in environmental protection

In a general sense, this is absolutely correct. Everything around us is part of our environment, the context within which we live. But this is not the way in which the subject is handled from a legal or administrative perspective.

A clear line has been drawn between the ‘environment’ and ‘planning’. They are now two separate authorities, with their own boards and chairmen, staff and budgets and legislation. They have different areas of responsibility and even fall under different ministers.

It is no secret that, before the demerger, many planners at Mepa viewed the entire environmental directorate as a thorn in the backside. Environment officers felt undermined and under-resourced, and were relieved to wave goodbye and get the hell out. You can’t really blame them.

The result is that the planners can now get on with granting permits, in the Maltese expression, as fast and easy as cheesecakes. They are rid of those annoying environment officers who insisted on pointing out rubble walls, arable land, valleys, flora and fauna, landscapes and such nonsense. All those nutters cared about is worms and lizards.

Moreover, environmental protection does not earn revenue, while planning applications do. Developers dislike feeling that their application fees may be indirectly subsidising environmental spokes in their wheels.

How could anyone ever expect this mentality to, I quote, “strengthen the environment” through a demerger? Malta’s greatest environmental challenges are linked to land use, due to the country’s small size. The powers of the new ERA are, however, extremely weak on land use. It has many responsibilities, including air quality, waste management and biodiversity, but it has little say on what gets built where, or the quantity of new buildings going up.

The influence of the ERA on the processing of development applications, leading to the case officer’s recommendation to the board, has been weakened, as environmental staff no longer sit around tables to discuss applications with planners as regularly as they used to. The ERA is now an external consultee, like several other authorities.

The emphasis on Axiak’s vote and opinion on building permits is therefore unrea­listic. Following the outcry, Gambin’s response to media criticism also misrepresented the hapless ERA officers who sat among the audience at the high-rise meetings. He unfairly implied that they could have spoken out if they wanted to.

To say what? Can ERA officers stand up on their own initiative to declare whether they personally agree with high-rise development permits? Of course not. Their remit was limited to the environmental studies, and the Mepa demerger has even stripped them of their role in presenting these to the planning board.

Now that the demerger has taken place, reality is kicking in. Its supporters may have had genuine environmental ideals but were blind to its motivations on the ground.

The demerger was politically driven by a set of people with absolutely no interest in environmental protection. The future of planning is now reflected in the new structure, legislation and policies.

Be careful what you wish for.

petracdingli@gmail.com