So the Labour government has rolled out its planning amnesty. It has long been coming, having been announced by “I-don’t-have-any-conflicts-of-interest” PA CEO Johann Buttigieg. He spoke about it last year, giving ample time for all those who wanted to knock up illegal buildings to do so, secure in the knowledge that all would be okayed by the Planning Authority soon. And so it came to pass in the inevitable Labour tradition of dismantling all regulatory and planning controls and rewarding illegality.

This we have come to expect from the government. But it has slunk to new lows in its pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Deborah Schembri said that the amnesty was intended to help people who couldn’t sell their houses because they were riddled with illegalities and the banks (justifiedly) refused to loan money to people who wanted to purchase houses with planning illegalities.

Then she played the cancer card. She said that this means that some separated couples are forced to live under the same roof, and that cancer patients are unable to sell their houses to fund their chemotherapy treatment. By means of this scheme, the value of their properties will rise significantly, she added.

Well how can anyone object to that? Who would be hard-hearted enough to deny cancer patients every possible opportunity to fund their treatment? Critics of the amnesty, Labour is implying. If you don’t agree with it you are callously impeding cancer-sufferers from securing their cure – the insinuation being that we can close our eyes to planning infractions to help the downtrodden.

Amnesties are repugnant expedients to legalise the illegal and to further foster a culture of planning chaos with no long-term vision or holistic planning considerations

The only thing wrong with this implication is that Labour’s amnesty does not apply only to minor infractions belonging to cancer-sufferers, but also to larger-scale illegalities by people who intentionally broke the law. The amnesty does not distinguish between minor or major infractions. It’s a free-for-all.

Anybody wanting to legalise the illegal can do so by the simple expedient of sending an e-mail with accompanying documents and the required fee. The law makes no provisions for these applications to be published, making it easier for law-breakers to operate in the shadows with the PA’s cosy complicity. There will be no public hearings, no transparency.

The only instance in which the PA is obliged to contact third parties is when they have lodged a formal complaint and an en­forcement order has resulted. If the Planning Authority has dragged its feet and not issued the requisite enforcement order, it continues to be plain sailing for the law-breaker.

The PA should not regularise the appli­cation if it constitutes an injury to amenity. Amenity is defined as the comfort, convenience, pleasantness, safety, security and utility that may be enjoyed within and around a property, street or neighbourhood. It can mean anything or nothing at all. For every 10 planning decisions about what constitutes an injury to amenity, I can give you another 10 with a diametrically contrasting position.

Let’s be quite clear – it is not a matter of legal interpretation but is totally dependent on which architect makes the submissions.

Much is being made of the fact that the PA can impose conditions, including the execution of specific works, when it approves an amnesty request. This is an irrelevant pro­vision. Everyone knows the authority’s en­forcement mechanism is weak and there is no way conditions can be enforced in practice.

The Labour government is acting as if it is concerned for people who have suddenly woken up to the fact that their property is riddled with illegality. But the same authority has been in existence since 1992. Any illegal developments dating prior to the existence of the authority have been provided for.

A search at the authority could have exposed the fact that the property was not built in accordance with planning laws and the prospective buyers could have avoided buying that substandard housing unit. This is what all prospective buyers do before buying property – making all necessary checks so as not to be saddled with illegal units.

Amnesties held in 2012 and 2013 already dealt with the abuse that could reasonably be absolved. So why have another amnesty now? When is the enforcement ever going to start?

It is clear that there is no intention to do so. If this amnesty was an exercise in wiping the slate clean and starting a new page, it would make provision for immediate enforcement action to be taken against all those who applied for the amnesty and were refused. Instead, if the amnesty application is turned down because it is an injury to amenity, the applicant gets a refund of his application fee and trots off without any repercussions. Why shouldn’t an enforcement notice be automatically issued in these cases?

Amnesties are repugnant expedients to legalise the illegal and to further foster a culture of planning chaos with no long-term vision or holistic planning considerations. When the current Planning Authority chairman Vince Cassar was president of the Chamber of Architects, he had lambasted the amnesty proposal, saying those who broke the law should not end up on an even footing with those who had adhered to it.

That is the truth of the matter. For the government to justify it by waving the cancer card is low. Even for Labour, it’s low, very low.

drcbonello@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.