A storage facility in Burmarrad that has operated illegally for almost three decades is primed for sanctioning. Kurt Sansone asks whether job creation justifies closing an eye to wrongdoing.
What should have been agricultural land has, for the past 28 years, been turned into a storage depot for construction vehicles and material.
The site, sprawling over 3,500 square metres, belongs to the Bonnici Group and the Planning Authority has in front of it an application to sanction the illegalities.
At a Planning Authority board meeting last week no decision was made on the applicant’s request but six of the 10-member board indicated they would support granting a permit.
The case officer has recommended refusal but some of the board members cited the large number of employees at the facility as reason enough to sanction the illegalities on site.
The application was referred back to the Planning Directorate to draw up a set of conditions while the imposition of a planning gain of €700,000 was also discussed.
The Planning Authority refrained from commenting on the Burmarrad case when asked about employment considerations in planning decisions. “The application has still to be determined by the board and, thus, a comment is not appropriate,” a spokeswoman said.
The referral to the directorate for conditions has been interpreted as a sign that the board will sanction the illegal works but the jobs argument to justify this brought back memories of other instances where companies used the jobs card to hold the authorities to ransom.
Illegal development should not, on a point of principle, be justified because of the economic spin-off it may create- Carmel Cacopardo
But should employment be a factor in planning decisions?
Architect Carmel Cacopardo, Alternattiva Demokratika’s deputy chairman, says economic and social issues are relevant considerations when planning policies are being drafted.
“Sacrificing the environment and social aspects for the greater economic good could be acceptable as part of the overall give and take of the planning process,” Mr Cacopardo says.
However, he insists this should not be used as an excuse to justify illegalities. “Illegal development should not, on a point of principle, be justified because of the economic spin-off it may create.”
Mr Cacopardo says that, over the years, there were many instances where planning decisions were made with a view to encourage economic growth and job creation. These came at the expense of environmental and social aspects.
“More recently, the social aspect has started being given more consideration, not so the environmental,” he adds.
Still, although the planning process does keep into consideration issues such as job creation, this should have nothing to do with illegal development, he insists.
Without entering into the merits of the Bonnici Group’s application, Mr Cacopardo notes there may be instances where a transition period is allowed for the illegality to be removed.
“This is done to mitigate the social and economic impact of addressing the illegality. But if the illegal development is causing urgent environmental damage, such as polluting the water table, action to address the situation should be immediate.”
Others are not so sure the remit to sanction based on the jobs argument falls squarely into the planning board’s remit.
Chris Mintoff, president of the Chamber of Architects, only hopes the Planning Authority will not be setting a precedent for other cases. “All I can say is that the Planning Authority has to be careful of setting a precedent for other cases with consequences it may not be anticipating,” he cautions.
For Sandro Chetcuti, president of the Malta Developers Association, the Burmarrad case is just one example of many others where illegalities persisted for years because the authorities found it “convenient” to turn a blind eye.
The authorities have to shoulder part of the blame for allowing wrongdoing to persist- Sandro Chetcuti
“I do not condone illegalities but the authorities have to shoulder part of the blame for allowing wrongdoing to persist with all the consequences this brings about,” Mr Chetcuti argues.
One of those consequences is job creation, which he believes is a pertinent consideration in any decision that should be taken today.
He says that, for years such problems, including the illegal Armier boathouses, were swept under the carpet while the economic and social spin-off continued to intensify.
“In circumstances like these, jobs may have been created that contributed to the general economic well-being and making a draconian decision today could lead to more problems being created than solved,” he says.
He believes that, in cases of illegality that date back decades, common sense should prevail and a reasonable way forward should be found.
Without entering into the merits of the Burmarrad case, Mr Chetcuti says regularising illegalities that go back in time should be accompanied by public gain in some form or another and any compromise should cause the least possible damage to the environment, society and the economy.
It may not be the nicest solution but it could be the most practical in the circumstances, he adds.
kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com