Updated at 6.50pm with minister's, parliamentary secretary, ERA's replies

Good governance principles had been ignored in the Planning Authority's approval process for a 38-storey skyscraper in Sliema, the Environment Ombudsman has written.  

A render of the Sliema Townsquare development. Mr Pace said good governance principles had not been followed in its approval process.A render of the Sliema Townsquare development. Mr Pace said good governance principles had not been followed in its approval process.

In a letter sent to Environment Minister Jose Herrera and Planning parliamentary secretary Deborah Schembri, David Pace said that it was now evident that planning considerations were being given far greater weight than environmental ones when deciding on project approvals. 

Mr Pace slammed the demerger of planning and environmental regulators, saying it has resulted in a "powerless, toothless" Environment and Resources Authority.

He made an oblique reference to the recent controversy surrounding the Planning Authority's approval of the 38-storey Townsquare skyscraper in Sliema. 

READ: Activists gather on the ERA's doorstep

ERA chairman Victor Axiak missed the meeting due to illness, and a statement he wrote outlining his views was not read out at the Planning Authority board hearing.

In his letter, Mr Pace argued that denying the PA board the chance to hear the ERA's views "runs entirely against transparency and accountability rules" and broke all fundamental principles concerning the right to a fair hearing. 

The fact that the PA was able to forge ahead despite an ERA representative not being present and the authority's views not being heard simply highlighted how inadequate existing laws were from an environmental protection point of view, the Environmental Ombudsman continued. 

 

In his letter, which was also sent to the Prime Minister, the Opposition leader and the PA chairman,  Mr Pace also highlighted a series of other concerns: 

  • Despite being ostensibly on an equal footing, the ERA was evidently far less powerful than the PA.

  • Concerns about the dangers of demerging planning and environmental regulatory functions had already been raised by Mr Pace in September 2015.

  • Development had to be seen as something that affected the environment, rather than environmental issues considered as something that might affect development.

  • ERA reports should be included among planning documents made available to the public.

  • A project should be denied planning permission if the ERA expresses reservations about it, as already happens if public health concerns are raised. 

The Planning Authority has far more power than the ERA, Mr Pace has said.The Planning Authority has far more power than the ERA, Mr Pace has said.

Mr Pace's letter, dated 24 August, was made public on the same day activists gathered outside the ERA's Marsa offices, deriding the authority as 'a nothing'. 

Amendments to allow substitution of member in case of illness being prepared

In a reply, Environment Minister Jose Herrera said that while he acknowledged the good work carried out by Mr Pace he had to clarify a number of points.

* The decision to separate the environment and planning arms of the authority was an electoral committment approved by the people in the last general election for a better balance between safeguarding the environment and sustainable development. The Environment Authority was now more proactive and strategic and focused more specifically on safeguarding the environment and resources, while assuming the important role of environment regulator.

* The environment now had a stronger voice and although one acknowledged that the authority was still in its infancy, it was growing and strengthening to serve its functions in the best way possible. The government was open to any genuine proposal which could lead to it being further strengthened.

* Through this separation the environmental voice was strong and protected through its vote on the planning board which previously did not exist as well as through the vote of environment NGOs which had been given a legal basis for the first time.

* It was not true that the authority for environment and resources was present for the executive council of the authority only when invited as an executive chairperson. The law which regulated planning clearly said that the executive council should include two members appointed from the Environment Authority who should always be called for meetings.

* Legal advice given to the ministry from the Attorney General on whether a board member could be substituted in case of illness was that the law did not permit this. So the necessary legal amendments were currently being prepared for this to become possible.

* It would be wrong for one to try to create friction between development and the environment as development should be sustainable.

* The planning process was one which included the interests of many other public sectors as well as socio-economic interests. It tried to reconcile these interests for the best development possible.

* On transparency, the minister said there were several tools for one to acquire information on government work including the Freedom of Information Act and the Aarhus Convention which guaranteed access to information of an environmental nature.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Simplification and the ERA also replied to Mr Pace. Their replies can be read in the pdf links below.

Attached files

Attached files

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.