There are no two ways about it. Despite the fact that we have more petrol stations than we could ever possibly need, despite the fact that they are gobbling up 3,000 square metres of ODZ land at a time and despite the fact that it is not an essential human need to have a nail bar, conference centre, and dining hall next to petrol pumps, more applications are on the way.  Those applications for planning permission which have been filed to date will be processed and decided according to the (very lax) policy currently in force.

That’s because of the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Basically, this states that individuals cannot be deprived of the benefits that they have received or legitimately expect to receive. So, if someone has bought a tract of land and applied for its development for a specific use allowed by policy, he would be justified in concluding that he has a right to be granted permission in accordance with that policy. He might not have bought or invested in that land – for that use – had the policy not been in place.

There has to be some measure of legal certainty and stability for people to make investments with peace of mind. It wouldn’t be fair to have constantly shifting goal posts and laws. That’s why the doctrine of legitimate expectations exists.

What I find cruelly ironic is that this legal doctrine only seems to be applied in the case of a few. It is always taken to mean a right to compensation for developers for restrictions imposed on the development of their property.

Now, there might be an argument for that, if the restrictions imposed are too great. However, we cannot ignore the plight of other citizens whose expectations for certain rights or benefits are constantly being ignored.

Take residents who live close to projected high-rise buildings and who have invested in solar heaters and pholtovoltaic panels. They have invested in the apparatus with the justified and totally legitimate expectation that they will benefit from reduced electricity bills. They have also contributed to a more sustainable mode of electricity generation and towards the reduction of pollution. At present those residents are deriving a pecuniary benefit as well as a health benefit. They are doing so in line with existing laws and policies which encourage such investment.

Don’t residents have legitimate expectations too?

So why should they be deprived of that benefit because the authorities are permitting monstrously high buildings which cast permanent shadows? Why should residents lose out on an investment which provides exclusively positive results and savings – just because speculators are given the go-ahead to build exxageratedly high buildings.

Why should developers be compensated for being deprived of their legitimate expectations, whilst residents are not? It should work both ways or not at all.

When talking about the subject of compensation for being deprived of a view or other amenities,  I can’t help remembering one man’s battle for such compensation. He lived in a lovely, old farmhouse on a quiet rural peninsula. Two of the island’s most stunning bays served as a bathing spot more beautiful than any pool could hope to be. Caper bushes cascaded from the rubble walls lining the path to his house. And the view was magnificent.

Then one day this idyll was shattered. A huge power station tower belching out grey clouds was built a few metres away from his house. No more unobstructed seaviews. The man felt that the power station was depriving him of the full use and enjoyment of his home. So he sought compensation in court saying he had been deprived of his rights of enjoyment of his property. 

The Constitutional Court agreed that he had a right to compensation and awarded him the equivalent of nearly a million euros in compensation. This compensation was granted despite the fact that his home had not been taken away from him and there was only a diminuition in his enjoyment of it.

That man’s name? Dom Mintoff – former Maltese Prime Minister. May his case serve as a precedent for other citizens to be awarded compensation for being deprived of light and prospects, views and an unpolluted environment. We are all Dom Mintoff now.

Twenty-nine years. That’s how long it took for a concerned group of citizens to obtain a judgment to the effect that a licence and a permit for a fireworks factory were null and void.

The licence should never have been granted because the fireworks factory was too close to roads in regular use. This was in breach of the law. The Court of Appeal confirmed this in January this year.

In a parliamentary sitting lasting two hours and 38 minutes (including toilet and cigarette breaks), our parliamentarians changed the law. The committee meeting was subsumed in the plenary stage. All fireworks facilities existing to date – whether within the previously prescribed distance or not and whether presently sanctioned or not – may now have a licence.

Leaving aside all other considerations, isn’t this a case of moving the legal goalposts? What about the legitimate expectations of citizens to live in a safe environment? What about the principles of legal certainty and the peace of mind of not having the laws arbitrarily changed from day to day?

Don’t residents have legitimate expectations too? Or is compensation for being deprived of legitimate expectations reserved for developers and powerful lobby groups only?

drcbonello@gmail.com