Policy documents, regardless of source, should be seen as an opportunity for society to engage in the socio political debate. The policy document entitled ‘A better quality of life’ launched recently by the Nationalist Party is no exception. The PN should also be commended for having chosen a very zealous architect, who is well versed with current planning legislation, to coordinate this whole effort.
Insofar as the contents of the policy document are concerned, there is certainly wide agreement on a number of issues. For example, the PN’s suggestion to incentivise the restoration and regeneration of historic and scheduled buildings in urban conservation areas is what Planning Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri is promoting through the Irrestawra Darek scheme. Under this scheme, first-time private buyers of residential Grade 1 and Grade 2 scheduled buildings may apply for a rebate of 70 per cent of eligible costs of restoration and conservation works on facades and interiors up to a maximum of €100,000. First-time private buyers of an old residence located within urban conservation areas can apply for a rebate of up to a maximum of €10,000.
That said, I take this occasion to pinpoint a number of key issues which the Opposition is still in time to clarify.
The document makes specific reference to high-rise buildings. It highlights in no uncertain terms that current policies are designed “to accommodate the interests of a handful of select individuals”. This is, in itself, an extremely worrying statement which cannot be taken lightly. It is not about technical aspects or moral responsibility. For a start, the PN has a duty to substantiate such serious allegations.
Is a Nationalist government pledging to subsidise construction costs?
The Opposition wants to provide better incentives for agro-tourism projects “as a clear example of how the economy and the environment can complement each other”. It is understood that such a recommendation was made in response to the prevailing situation, whereby it is practically impossible for an agro-tourism application to succeed. Current policies provide that applicants should be in possession of 60 tumoli of contiguous/consolidated land. As had been anticipated, such a policy proved to be too onerous. Will the PN relax the said requirements?
The Opposition is saying it would provide financial incentives for buildings designed to meet the NZEB (near-zero energy buildings) targets. Now, article 9 of the 2010 Recast Directive (2010/31/EU) calls on member states, including Malta, to ensure that, by December 31, 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy. In practice, it is estimated that current construction costs would need to double to achieve such target. Is a Nationalist government pledging to subsidise development construction costs? Is that possible under state aid regulations?
The PN would also ensure “a zero-tolerance approach to illegal development”. Does that mean it would no longer be possible to sanction irregularities conforming with regulations? What is the point of having a building being demolished if it is equally possible to obtain a permit for having it reconstructed?
The policy document has reiterated what the PN leader had earlier stated in June 2013 whereby the final decisions on major projects affecting ODZ land from the government “would be shifted to Parliament”. As the law stands, it is possible for the Cabinet of ministers to decide a third party appeal against a project of national security or national importance.
Having said that, the decision of the Cabinet is not final because the outcome is subject to a further appeal on matters of substantive and procedural legality before the Court of Appeal in its superior jurisdiction. According to the Opposition’s proposal, Parliament would have the final say instead of the Court of Appeal. Is this really what eNGOs are after?
The policy document also provides that a PN-led government would prepare an agriculture policy that would, inter alia, ensure greater profitability of the sector. Fair enough. Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that the much-debated rural policy and design guidance document, published in 2014, was specifically designed with a similar emphasis, as a result of which it became much easier for farmers to obtain a planning permit. Is it right to assume that these policies would be diluted further?
The above highlights should not be taken to mean that the Opposition has failed its mission. But the questions posed deserve a clear answer.
Robert Musumeci, a lawyer and an architect, is consultant at the Office of the Prime Minister.