The three proposed draft laws aimed at reforming the planning process are long and complex. It is, therefore, not realistic to expect that they could be seriously and meaningfully understood, discussed and modified in a handful of days.

Of the many potential issues that need to be considered very seriously, I have picked out the following from the proposed planning and the environment and planning review tribunal Bills.

While environmental planning will no longer form part of our land use planning system, new responsibilities, like building regulations, licensing of masons, have been formally included.

These functions are not normally encompassed within a land use planning regime because practitioners in these areas require a totally different skill set. In fact, in other jurisdictions these functions are usually handled by a totally different organisation.

It is ironic that environmental planning is being removed only to be replaced by a set of totally unrelated functions. Building regulations, access for the disabled, sanitary laws, building construction, etc. are important considerations but have got nothing to do with land use planning whereas environmental planning has everything to do with it.

It looks as if the planning system being proposed will be totally centred around the minister and the executive chairman (who is appointed by the government). These individuals will have unlimited and absolute powers to write plans, alter boundaries, decide whether a local plan should be written for a particular area or not and so on.

One notes in particular that it seems that the minister will have the power to decide where the development boundary should be drawn in each particular case.

Incidentally, I could not find anywhere in the drafts a single mention of the term ‘ODZ’. In the proposed planning Bill it is stated clearly that all plans will be subsidiary to SPED, which will be substituting the Structure Plan. As SPED is totally subjective and unenforceable, it follows that all plans will be wobbly and subject only to the interpretation of the government of the day.

I could not find any ‘checks and balances’ mechanisms/procedures in the text. Everything seems to revolve around the executive chairman. The way the draft is written it is clear also that the executive chairman will have a very big say in how permit applications are decided.

For the uninitiated, it is worth explaining that the Structure Plan came into effect in the early 1990s. In formulating its policies, a whole range of studies were carried out.

These studies, therefore, provided the background and justification required for the body of policies comprising the Structure Plan. As far as I am aware, no equivalent studies were undertaken in the preparation of SPED.

Environmental planning is being removed only to be replaced by a set of totally unrelated functions

The document is not a technical working manual but a description of a ‘vision’ with no measurable specifics. This makes it subjective and unenforceable, especially come election time.

Incidentally, SPED was the brainchild of the previous Nationalist government.

Though a lot is being made about the possibility of removing two key statements in the SPED to attempt to limit development ODZ, few people seem to be aware that, even today, with the existing planning regime, many permits are being granted ODZ on a daily basis. These are ‘hidden’ from public view in the deluge of planning applications that appear in the papers every week.

These ODZ permits are normally justified on the basis of a whole group of dubious policies supposedly subsidiary to the Structure Plan but which, in fact, are contrary to its letter and spirit and sometimes deliberately aim to undermine it.

It is a known fact that many inside and outside Mepa hold the Structure Plan in contempt, presumably also because of its disciplined approach to ODZ considerations. One shudders to think what will happen to the number of ODZ permits granted once the proposed planning system comes into effect.

The draft planning Bill also establishes a large number of committees, commissions, etc. Apart from the fact that most of these seem to only have a consultative role, as far as I could gather all the members on these bodies are more or less appointed by the minister.

In summary, one concludes that, from an administrative and functional angle, the proposed planning Bill is very retrograde with most of the real power and decision-making in the hands of a handful of individuals firmly in the camp of the government of the day.

Even in the original setup, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal was similar to a court of law but now, with the proposed EPRT Bill, this is being taken to extremes. This is very unfortunate because, to be effective, the EPRT must be a technical last resort where the parties make their case in planning (or environmental) terms.

The role of the EPRT is not to deliver ‘justice’ to one side or the other (the courts do that) but to decide on the planning (or environmental) merits of a case in the public interest and based on a final technical interpretation of existing plans and policies. As it is now being proposed, the EPRT is nothing more than a court of first instance with all the trappings of a regular court where lawyers, who may or may not fully comprehend the technical issues involved, make their case on the basis of the procedures that are adopted in a typical court where ‘precedent’ and ‘commitment’ rule.

This is the complete opposite to what an objective and technical final planning assessment should really be about.

The EPRT should be there to protect the public interest first and foremost.

To add insult to injury, not only will the proposed EPRT now be a court of first instance but it is a court directly subservient to the whims and needs of the Prime Minister who chooses all the members and decides which cases are to be heard by which EPRT and also “may order that any other decision of the Planning Authority shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal”.

One notes in utter disbelief the number of times the words ‘Prime Minister’ appear in the text.

Another fundamental and very dangerous flaw is that the new EPRT will now be able to decide alignment appeals.

This can be considered to be another indirect way being resorted to in order to give the government the power to alter development boundaries.

As a matter of principle, decisions on issues relating to changes in the status of a particular land area (and, therefore, including the drawing of development boundaries), whether privately or publicly owned, should never be left in the hands of the government of the day but must be made by Parliament.

It is fair to conclude that if these draft Bills are approved in their present form, they will create a planning regime that will the exact opposite to the one envisaged when it was suggested that, to ensure fairness, objectivity and transparency, the planning system should be administered by the House Planning and Environment Committee.

Chris Falzon is a former chairman of the then Planning Authority and of the Environment and Planning Appeals Tribunal.