A proposed amnesty for development irregularities predating the 2008 planning reform has been criticised by architects and planners’ bodies.
The Nationalist Party proposal would extend an already existing amnesty on courtyard irregularities to entire buildings, provided the infringements are not serious and of no disturbance to neighbours or third parties.
Owners would pay a “proportionate” fine to their local council and in exchange see their properties fall in line with the law.
Those who spoke to The Times were broadly supportive of the idea, concerns about vague wording and amnesty cut-off dates meant they were tepid about the proposal.
“It’s a good idea on paper, especially for buildings constructed before the planning authority was established, but there are so many subjective clauses it’s hard to endorse,” Malta Developers’ Association president and former PN minister Michael Falzon said.
“What constitutes a ‘serious’ irregularity, for instance?”
There are thousands of buildings with planning irregularities across the country. Many are near-impossible to sell, with banks unwilling to lend money for such purchases.
Those who favour the PN proposal believe it is the closest to a win-win solution, with hitherto illegal buildings made available for use, developers helped to increase their cash flow and cash-strapped local councils raking in money through amnesty fines.
Detractors say an amnesty – especially one available to buildings erected as recently as 2007 – would reward law-breakers and be a slap in the face for those who ensured they respected planning regulations.
Jerome Mamo, of Simon Mamo Real Estate, said he understood the logic but argued it should be much narrower in scope.
“Properties built before Mepa came into existence (in 1992) shouldn’t be penalised for not adhering to planning regulations because they predate the authority.
“But there’s no valid reason for sanctioning an illegal development built just 10 or 15 years ago. The person building knew he was breaking the law,” Mr Mamo said.
“Talking about an amnesty for illegal properties sounds bad but the idea is in itself good,” architect Anthony Fenech Vella said.
He suggested a two-tiered system, with pre-1992 buildings placed on an amnesty fast-track.
“But even more modern buildings need a way of regularising their position,” he said, although he insisted amnesties should be limited to minor irregularities.
Chamber of Architects president Vince Cassar was less enthused. “It’s just a repeat of what we’ve seen in other spheres. Rules aren’t properly enforced, so then there’s an amnesty to straighten things out.
“There should be regular enforcement to ensure things don’t get to this stage. Those who break the law should not end up on an even footing with those who adhere to it.”
The Malta Chamber of Planners had concerns. “It would be better to revise the whole development policy regime,” a spokesman said.