Almost three quarters of the Superintendent for Cultural Heritage’s resources are committed to the assessment of planning applications and the regulation of development and construction works.
Its annual report for 2016 shows graphically how legal changes to the planning process enacted when the new Planning Authority came into effect in 2016 have resulted in a “drastic surge” in applications requiring cultural monitoring or approval by the superintendence.
Last year the superintendence, which is tasked with protecting the country’s cultural heritage, reviewed more than 5,400 planning applications, an increase over 2015 of 4,300 cases. To underline the escalation in such planning applications the number for 2016 was 13 times higher than those reviewed just three years before.
Superintendent Tony Pace draws attention in his report to the workload which processing the Planning Authority applications entails. He concludes that they are “now the single most onerous of [his] commitments” since the planning reform was introduced, taking up over 70 per cent of his resources.
The increased workload is inevitably placing a severe strain on current staff numbers. Although manpower was increased by two posts to 14 today, the number is clearly not sufficient to cope effectively and efficiently with the onerous responsibilities placed upon them by the new law.
Each application requires a response within 30 days, all technical documents submitted as part of the application have to be fully assessed, and inspections and on-site meetings with authority officials, architects and developers have to be conducted.
Clearly, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is grossly overstretched. For example, in 2016 it was “not in a position to publish any new inventory records… due to a lack of resources and other more pressing commitments”.
Although the first instalment of inventory records was published in 2011, of the 4,807 records inputted on the Cultural Heritage Inventory Management System, none was included in 2016 despite the obligations under Article 7 of the Act for the superintendent to compile such an inventory. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is part of the cultural heritage structure, which when it belatedly came into effect 15 years ago has always been under-resourced and under-rated. Yet its responsibilities are fundamental to the safeguarding of Malta’s rich cultural heritage.
While the superintendent is now being advised by the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee (formerly an advisory panel within the Planning Authority tasked with screening planning applications), which is clearly a considerable aid in providing guidance to the superintendent, dealing in 2016 with over 300 applications, there can be no argument that the superintendence as a body is woefully under-resourced.
Action should be taken for a management review of the superintendence to be conducted to assess objectively what additional manpower or other resources are required to enable it to meet the whole range of tasks – from setting policy standards and assessing land-use planning applications, to maintaining comprehensive and up-to-date records and regulating heritage management plans – to fulfil its important role of safeguarding Malta’s cultural heritage.
The superintendence must be given the tools to meet its tasks.