While watching TV on Monday night, I could not but agree that there was probably never a more fitting name for the Mistra proposal. Without entering into the merits of the case, all this talk (like in other cases) only induces fear in the deciding bodies, which easily fall victim to psychological subjection as they do not have the necessary training and expertise to fend off doubts, reconcile objectors and seek true planning gain.
Sadly, prominent public figures still try to defend the indefensible. Such seemingly selfless crusades may raise some eyebrows and may damage both the government's and personal credibility. I must admit that, to me and other professionals (or "technical experts"), defending DCCs ferociously in cases where wrongdoing is undisputed has two sides. One side displays a blatant mockery of the planning system and people's intelligence while the other may be considered as a long-term "investment" in trying to gain the favour of DCC boards in future "negotiations".
Volumes can be written about Mepa's dubious decisions, yet the only reason there isn't more talk on the papers by competent people or those sitting for hours every day in public hearings witnessing the butchering of planning policy is the fear of retribution.
While there is ample scope for negotiations, most are aware that the willingness of DCCs to concede or otherwise to those negotiations is based on more than just using eloquent jargon. Despite having at least three architects sitting on each board, external pressures and inherent lack of planning knowledge makes DCCs vulnerable to a whole spectrum of pressures.
Most decisions continue to be based on precedent, rule of thumb, personal taste or mood. This is mind boggling as is the reason that only a handful of architects manage to get ODZ developments approved or overturned and, in some limited cases, even when using the identical plans that other architects got refused months earlier. Determining planning applications has become so improvised that it seems we would be better off handing such functions to Maltco Lotteries.
Albeit impractical, time consuming and futile, calls for a review of past decisions have become legitimate, judging by chairman Andrew Calleja's annus horribilis.
As a planning consultant and as president of the Malta Chamber of Planners, I've been pressing for qualified planning professionals on boards to restore equity of treatment and eliminate scandalous unjustified decisions.
Some may deem it a clear conflict of interest. I say that in a time, when the current situation is in shambles and it is clear that there are very few qualified professionals competent at the task in hand, seeking to achieve sustainable development and the well-being of the people in this country would not constitute such a fault.
Only qualified planning professionals can weigh the different aspects of a development and draw a balanced conclusion while embracing true public participation. Planners are specifically trained in this. I'm sure nobody will take any offence in me saying that, while acknowledging their valuable input, architects (with the exception of one or two) and lay persons sitting on boards do not have any planning qualifications or credentials. Planning is a distinct profession, which is backed up by an educational regime that is totally different to that used to train architects.
I know people are enduring great sacrifices given bank loans, contractual commitments and all sorts of obligations, but it is important to make the most of the current pause and start afresh even if it means that we wait for a little bit more to make tough, informed and rational decisions.
In conclusion, we should seek to be constructive in our criticism, accept and assume the responsibility of our role and actions. As long as there are no qualified planning professionals leading the organisation, sitting on the boards and providing training to new Mepa recruits, this pathetic situation will prevail.
This uncertainty and ad hoc decisions are as damaging to the environment as they are to entrepreneurs because this creates unfair competition in an already highly competitive, some contend ailing market. Those responsible for obliterating Mepa's 18 years of credibility building should take this opportunity to step down and let others raise this important authority from the ashes.
Mr Bonello holds a BSc (Hons) degree in environmental management and planning from the University of Central England, Birmingham. After working for 10 years at Mepa, he now runs his own planning consultancy.
tobydais@maltanet.net