From business-friendly to people-friendly

Public land is being continuously taken over for tables and chairs as an outdoor extension of restaurants and cafeterias. It is a land grab and has been going on for years. This land grab has intensified after the outbreak of COVID-19, primarily in response to the then restrictions on the permissible indoor numbers of customers allowed within catering establishments.

The most obvious examples of this land grab are in places like Sliema, Marsaskala, St Paul’s Bay, and Valletta. This land grab, however, is taking place all over the island, in practically all localities.

There are instances, such as in the case of squares, pedestrianized streets, and other large open spaces, where the placing of chairs and tables does not bother anyone. In these instances, complaints are rare, except when excessive noise is generated, particularly in the silent hours. In these cases, the use of public spaces for the placing of tables and chairs can be justified, provided that the space taken up for such use is reasonable and respects the rights of both the public as well as the residential communities.

The ever-increasing complaints are in respect of those instances where pavements are practically completely taken over by the placing of tables and chairs such that pedestrians, obstructed from using the pavement end up having to share the road with moving traffic, at considerable risk to themselves. It gets worse in the case of wheelchair users and their carers, as well as in the case of parents with children, particularly those still in prams.

In residential areas, that is in those instances where there are a number of residential units above ground-floor commercial establishments, the placing of tables and chairs on the pavement also restricts residents’ access to their homes. There is the added issue, encountered in many cases, of difficulty in accessing residential units when making deliveries of large objects, such as furniture and white goods. The land grab makes access in these instances practically impossible.  Access would be even worse in case of emergencies. I have not heard a whimper from the civil protection authorities on the matter.

As emphasised in the ADPD 2022 Electoral Manifesto, we want our pavements back. The use of pavements should revert to their intended use. Pedestrians should always have priority. It is about time that public authorities shift their emphasis from being business-friendly to people-friendly.  The needs of residents and pedestrians should take precedence over the interests of business! The pavement is, after all, not meant for tables and chairs but to facilitate the mobility of people such that they are safe from traffic.

This would entail that planning applications for placing tables and chairs in open areas are vetted properly, such vetting being based on the real impacts on both the residential community and pedestrians. It would also mean that continuous monitoring is carried out to ensure that the permit limitations are observed.

Just a little bit of effort in enforcement would make quite a significant difference. Unfortunately, enforcement is practically nonexistent. This lack of enforcement is the driving force that motivates those abusing the system to ride roughshod over the rights of residents and pedestrians. They know that most probably their abuse will be ignored as it has been for ages. This has always been interpreted that the state does not care at all.

During the local elections next month, this issue is a matter of considerable importance to residents. It is a campaign issue that is continuously brought up in discussions with voters.

The Marsascala ADPD candidate Brian Decelis has been campaigning on the matter for some time. This week he was confronted by one of the operators who is obstructing pavements at Marsaskala. He was even threatened. A police report has been submitted on the incident and it is hoped that swift action will be taken by the police authorities.

This mess should be addressed, all over the islands, the soonest.

Local Councils should be at the front line in ensuring that the authorities act such that permits issued for the placing of tables and chairs outside commercial establishments are people-friendly and that abusive operators are brought to order the soonest.  Electing local councilors sensitive to the matter would make a substantial difference.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 5 May 2024

Unbridled Development: on whose side is the state?

After years of supporting unbridled development the Labour Party in government is trying to signal that, after all, it is on the side of the vulnerable, those who are continuously trampled by developers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a result of the Sofia inquiry report, the BCA (Building and Construction Authority), on government’s instructions, issued a call for architects (and lawyers) to offer their services to assist those third parties impacted by development.

The current initiative is a positive step forward but, in my opinion, it is insufficient as it subjects the available assistance to instructions from the BCA. It is the BCA which decides whether and to what extent professional assistance is required.

A 13-page document was issued by the BCA on March 9, entitled “Expression of Interest. Invitation for the Provision of Periti to provide professional assistance to third parties”.

The service to be provided and paid for by BCA shall presumably cover advice relative to a description of the development, as well as the method statements submitted by the developer’s advisors. It will also cover inspections and the required estimates in the eventuality of damage sustained as a result of the development under consideration.

It is however not clear whether taking the BCA itself to task is covered by the said expression of interest. I am saying this because the professional service to be provided is subject to “the specific administrative instructions of the authority” as per paragraph 1.4 of the BCA expression of interest document.  This signifies that the BCA itself must authorize, for example, the seeking of advice to contest the way in which the BCA itself operates as well as to how it decides on specific cases.

This is just one aspect of the problems to be faced. The issues that should have been addressed are much wider and deeper than what is being acknowledged by the conditions of the expression of interest document.

Consider, for example, ground floor properties forming part of a two-storey development originally approved many years ago. When the existing development at first floor (and the overlying airspace) is purchased by developers with the intent to redevelop as a block of flats, it is hell for the ground floor residents. All sorts of pressures are resorted to in order to ensure that, as far as possible, residents acquiesce and shut up.

In such cases the ground/foundation condition reports being submitted leave much to be desired. It is logical that residents in ground-floor properties are reluctant to have their properties subjected to tests and sample boreholes in order that the prevalent geological conditions are identified. In the absence of this information, developers and their advisors are taking short cuts and making several. at times, incorrect assumptions as to the prevalent geological conditions on site. This is being done in order to give a clean bill of health to the proposed development.

Faced with such a situation some succumb to pressure from developers and consider moving out of their homes as a result, providing the desired carte blanche for the developers.

Is this fair? Yet this is what will eventually happen in a number of cases. In fact, it is already happening.

This is not a matter which can be adequately dealt with by the BCA after the development permit has been issued by the Planning Authority. It must be dealt with before the planning application is even submitted. Only then can one safely say that the legislator and the relative authorities are on the side of the downtrodden.

In simple words, it is much better to avoid the creation of a mess then having to deal with the not so pleasant consequences. This is how the vulnerable can be served.

Published in Times of Malta: Sunday 17 March 2024

Angelo Gafà jiftiehem ma’ tal-Muzewijiet

Donnu li issa ser neħduha drawwa. Kollox bil-maqlub.

Il-Kamra tal-Periti ftehmet mal-iżviluppaturi. Issa l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija ftiehem ma Heritage Malta.

X’jonqos? Li l-Pulizija tiftiehem ma’ Yorgen Fench f’isem ir-residenti ta’ Kordin?

Għax donnu li ma dawk li għandhom ċans li jiksbu residenza Kordin fit-tul, qiesu diġa ftehmu.

Lill-Korp tal-Pulizija irrendewh f’Mużew, u xogħolhom qajla jagħmluh.

Għaliex għaddew dawn is-snin kollha u l-kriminali l-kbar għadhom jiġru mas-saqajn?

Hemm għalfejn tkun il-Qorti biex tordna li jittieħdu passi kontra dawk li ħawwdu fil-balbuljata tal-isptarijiet? Meta ser tintrefa’ r-responsabbiltà kriminali fil-kaz tal-Vitals Global Healthcare? Meta ser iwieġbu għal għemilhom il-kriminali ta’ Kastilja u tal-Mile End?

Mhux aħjar jaghmel xogħolu sew il-Kummissarju flok joqgħod jgħaddi ż-żmien fil-Mużew tal-Pulizija?

Il-Kamra tal-Periti tibla’ l-lixka ta’ Michael Stivala

Ma nafx jekk hux tad-daħq inkella tal-biki.

L-Kamra tal-Periti iffirmat ftehim mal-assoċjazzjoni tal-iżviluppaturi (MDA). Jridu jgħollu l-livelli, l-kwalità tal-industrija qed tippreokkuphom.

Bil-ftehim li għamlu, qalulna, li l-Kamra tal-Periti u l-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi flimkien ser jagħmlu sforz biex itejbu is-sitwazzjoni. Jidher li l-konsulenti ta’ Stivala qed jaħdmu bis-sahra. Mhux qed nirreferi biss għal Joseph Muscat, iżda ukoll għal dawk li huma eżiljati mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u li sabu r-refuġju tagħhom fl-imperu ta’ Michael Stivala.

Din mhiex diska ġdida. Kultant idoqqulna ftit noti minnha.

Madwar ħames snin ilu, per eżempju kienu qalulna li daqshekk kwalità tat-tielet dinja fl-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni. Sfortunatament għadna hemm, f’numru ta’ każi. Dakinnhar kienu qalulna li ser ikollhom skema ta’ kwalità. Kienu tawna x’nifhmu li din il-kwalità kienet garantità mill-persuni distinti u ta’ kwalità għolja preżenti għat-tħabbira, bħal Konrad Mizzi, Ian Borg, il-Perit David Xuereb u oħrajn li xi drabi jagħtu l-impressjoni li jifhmu f’kollox. (ara r-ritratt fejn jidhru dawn il-persuni distinti)

Wara ħames snin, morna lura flok il-quddiem.

Sadanittant il-Kamra tal-Periti tibla’ l-lixka ta’ Stivala.

Dan ma tantx qed jagħmel ġid għall-kredibilità, la dik tal-professjoni u iktar dik tal-Kamra tal-Periti.

Love and tears: the theatrics of the speculative brigade

During the conference launching the KPMG annual review of the property market held last week, Michael Stivala, Malta Development Association Chairman, in a tear-jerking intervention, told us that the developers love us. Developers, he emphasised, need to treat third parties neighbouring their development as part of the family.

There is only one reply to these theatrics: we have had enough.  Much more than enough, in fact.

Redevelopment works in most of our towns and villages are, many a time, carried out without sufficient attention to the needs of and impacts on those living and working in the vicinity. At times it is seems as if they don’t even exist. They are considered by developers to be a nuisance.

ADPD-The Green Party has been at the forefront, over the years, in emphasising the need to apply a moratorium on large-scale development. It is welcome news that former Prime Minister and Labour Leader Alfred Sant is now singing from the same hymn book.

Too much damage has been done over the years through the continuous support of over-development by the state.

The rationalisation exercise approved by Parliament in 2006 had then added two million square metres of ODZ land to the development zone. A substantial portion of this land is now in the process of being developed and most localities are at the receiving end. To date ADPD-The Green Party is the only political party advocating the reversal of this exercise. We have been constantly harping this point since the day the rationalisation exercise was approved way back in July 2006.

To add insult to injury, the state does not fail to take up opportunities to join the speculative industry as is currently being done by Enemalta at il-Qajjenza, limits of Birżebbuġa. Earlier this week it has been reported in the media that Enemalta Corporation as well as the Lands Authority are supporting a planning control application by a private developer, which application is proposing the development of the site of the former gas-bottling plant. This site was decommissioned some years back when the LPG sector was privatised and the plant moved to another site at Bengħajsa.

This planning control application (PC 22/23) involves land having an area of slightly under 24,000 square metres and seeks to change the zoning of the site of the former Enemalta gas bottling depot to one of mixed residential and commercial development spread over six blocks. The proposed blocks vary in height from four to eight floors.

Do we need this? Isn’t enough damage already in hand? The question which begs a reply is the need to explain why Enemalta and the Lands Authority are joining the speculative brigade: bulldozing over the rights of the residential community. Enemalta has caused too much damage to the Birżebbuġa community over the years. Isn’t it time for some form of atonement?  Enemalta should commence planning for reparations, to make good the damage done over the years.

It would be of considerable interest to know the views, on the proposed Qajjenza development, of the three government MPs elected from the Birżebbuġa electoral district. These being Robert Abela, Prime Minister, Enemalta and Environment Minister Miriam Dalli and land use planning Minister Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi. It would not be in my view incorrect to assume that they support this application, as otherwise they would have stopped Enemalta from giving its consent.

It is no use that they now join Michael Stivala in shedding tears in sympathy with the Qajjenza residential community. It would have been more appropriate if the political appointees which they have nominated over the years took the appropriate decisions immediately.

Shedding tears is not a newly invented gimmick. Fortunately, most can see through such theatrics.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 November 2023

The authorities do not care

The summer months were hell for Xemxija residents. They had to bear continuous excavation works at the former Mistra Village site, notwithstanding that during the summer months such works ought to have been on hold in terms of a tourism related restriction. These works are the cause of nuisance not just to tourists but more to residents in view of both excessive noise and the continuous generation of dust.

Unfortunately, the authorities do not care. Their priorities continuously prefer the building construction industry to the residential community. It is only when they are faced with a serious accident that they try to give the impression that they care. Their crocodile tears, reforms and public inquiries impress no one, nowadays.

The Planning Authority website informs us that the current development planning permit (PA 6747/18) for the Mistra Village project is valid until the 29 April 2024.

 It was approved in February 2019 and  renews a previous permit. Its validity has been contested by Xemxija residents through a planning appeal. The point at issue is that applicable land use planning policies, had, in the meantime, changed. Yet the planning authority rubberstamped a renewed development planning permit notwithstanding that it is obliged in terms of the Development Planning Act to reassess the original application if no works have been taken in hand.

The case ended up at the Court of Appeal, which, on 10 May 2023 identified this shortcoming and sent the case back to be re-examined by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT). In his judgement, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti pointed out that the presentation by the developer of a commencement notice, on its own, is not sufficient proof that the site is committed. Actual proof of commitment is required. As a result, it is therefore questionable whether such an application for renewal should be exempted from being re-examined by the Planning Authority in the light of new policies.

This is the reason, as a result of which, suddenly, excavation works were taken in hand almost round-the-clock!

Perusal of the Planning Authority website reveals that the Building & Construction Authority (BCA) only authorised the commencement of excavation works in March 2023 just a few weeks before the Chief Justice delivered his verdict, and many months after the permit was actually renewed. The Planning Authority assesses applications haphazardly, continuously favouring developers and ignoring those factors which contribute to a realistic critical analysis of what is being proposed.

In addition, no one is monitoring the excessive noise and dust generated as a result of the development in hand. The noise and dust are causing neighbours in the residential area surrounding the site, unnecessary stress and distress.

All this is being done in order to build more flats and penthouses, a substantial number of which will remain vacant or underutilised, even if sold.

St Paul’s Bay, which is home to Mistra Village at Xemxija,  has 37.3 per cent of its residential units which are either vacant or else underutilised. (Mellieħa is in close second place with 36 per cent of its housing stock in the vacant/underutilised category). The 2021 Census report on residential property published recently identified 7,377 flats and penthouses in St Paul’s Bay which, on Census Day, were either vacant or underutilised. Underutilisation meaning that the property is being used as a secondary residence or for seasonal accommodation.

Where do we go from here?

Part of the current mess would have been avoided if no works commence prior to the conclusion of land use planning appeal proceedings.

The problems however run much deeper than that. The authorities generally act prejudicially in favour of development and developers. It is an almost unconscious attitude which is deeply ingrained within the DNA of the authorities. Residents are considered as a nuisance. They are generally ignored and rarely factored into policies and decisions taken.

At the end of the day, it is no wonder that development and developers run roughshod over our residential communities. They are aware that the authorities are pre-programmed in their favour.

What we need is not just a behavioural change within the institutions. Change within the institutional DNA is the urgent requirement. Maybe having the residents themselves take the decisions on the actual permissible development in their neighbourhood is what is really required. Then we will have the required change. As the authorities do not care.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 1 October 2023

Il-burokrazija u l-Belt ta’ Stivala

Xahar wara l-ieħor jibbumbardjawna bi statistika dwar kuntratti ta’ bejgħ tal-propjetà inkella dwar in-numru ta’ konvenji. Dan l-aħħar qieshom inbidlu ftit in-numri b’mod li beda jidher li l-bejgħ qed jonqos.  Dak li jmexxi l-assoċjazzjoni tal-iżviluppaturi qalilna li hi l-burokrazija li qed ittellef ir-ritmu tal-bejgħ.  

Il-proċess tal-permessi għall-iżvilupp, ġeneralment, hu iffukat fid-direzzjoni tar-rgħiba. Ħolqu regoli msejħa regoli tal-flessibilità biex isibu mod kif iduru mar-regoli tal-iżvilupp li oriġinalment saru bl-iskop li jħarsu t-tessut urban u l-kwalità tal-ħajja tal-komunità residenzjali.  Per eżempju, żona intenzjonata għal taraġ pubbliku fil-pjan lokali għall-Gżira għamel il-wisa’ biex tinbena lukanda. Dan qed isir f’żona residenzjali, jiġifieri fejn suppost jinbnew biss djar għan-nies.  Din il-flessibilità estrema fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art qed igawdu minnha l-Grupp tal-Kumpaniji Stivala. Dan ngħidu b’referenza għall-parti ta’ fuq ta’ Triq Moroni: żona li r-residenti tal-Gżira illum isibuha bħala l-Belt Stivala. Minkejja dan kollu l-kap tal-MDA għandu l-wiċċ li jilmenta! Qiesu dan mhux biżżejjed.

Żviluppaturi fil-Mellieħa mhumiex daqstant fortunati bir-regoli tal-flessibilità għax lukanda li ħarġilha permess ta’ żvilupp f’ċirkustanzi simili laqqtita meta l-Qorti tal-Appell ħassret il-permess. Il-permess ta’ żvilupp għal lukanda fil-Belt ta’ Stivala għandha ċans li jkollha l-istess destin bħall-dak tal-Mellieħa fil-futur qarib. Għalkemm l-applikazzjoni għall-permess ġie approvat madwar ħames xhur ilu  (PA5962/21) il-permess ta’ żvilupp għadu ma ħarigx.

Kultant l-opinjoni pubblika tiġiha waħda żewġ! Il-protezzjoni riċenti permezz ta’ skedar ta’ Palazzino Vincenti f’San Ġiljan hi materja oħra ta’ kunflitt bejn ta’ Stivala u l-burokrazija tal-ippjanar. Għadu kmieni wisq biex wieħed jista’ jgħid li dan hu każ magħluq.  B’ansjetà u biża’ nistenna l-passi li jmiss, u dan minkejja li hemm xi forma ta’ skedar tal-wirt li ħalla warajh l-Perit Vincenti.

Ta’ Stivala kienu qed jippjanaw li jħottu Palazzino Vincenti u floku, f’San Ġiljan, jiżviluppaw lukanda oħra.  F’Diċembru 2022 Palazzino Vincenti kien protett temporanjament fi Grad 1 permezz ta’ Ordni ta’ Konservazzjoni ta’ Emerġenza.  Din il-protezzjoni temporanja issa spiċċat u flokha għandna protezzjoni fi Grad 2 fuq bażi permanenti kif deċiż mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ix-xahar li għadda. Din mhiex aħbar tajba għax issa probabbilment ser nispiċċaw  bil-faċċata biss ta’ Palazzino Vincenti: ġewwa jispiċċa kollu.

Għal dawk li ferħu bl-aħbar tal-protezzjoni imħabbra, naħseb li għaġġlu. Probabbilment hu biss l-iżviluppatur u l-konsulenti tiegħu li għandhom għax jgħorku jdejhom għax mhux ser ikunu wisq il-bogħod milli jilħqu l-miri tagħhom.

F’dan il-kaz ukoll il-burokrazija tal-ippjanar mhux ser ikun irnexxielha milli żżomm lil ta’ Stivala milli jagħmlu ħerba mill-wirt nazzjonali. Kollox bil-barka tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Il-burokrazija tal-ippjanar li minnha jilmenta l-Kap tal-MDA l-anqas ma kienet tidher b’nemes meta ta’ Stivala ġiehom il-ħsieb li jġebbdu l-iżvilupp sat-tarf tal-kosta. Tiftakru? Erba’ snin ilu f’din il-paġna, f’artiklu ntitolat : Il-ħarsien tal-kosta: ma hemmx rieda politika (Illum: 14 t’ April 2019) kont ktibt dwar il-permess ta’ żvilupp tal-blokk bini fejn kien hemm ir-restorant Piccolo Padre mal-kosta ta’ San Ġiljan. Kont emfasizzajt dan li ġej: “L-iżvilupp in kwistjoni ngħata permess fuq art mal-kosta.  B’żieda ma dan …………………. jidher ċar li l-binja tibqa’ ħierġa fuq il-baħar.  Jidher li l-Awtorità tal-Artijiet l-anqas biss tniffset dwar dan.” Minkejja dak li jgħid il-Kap tal-MDA, il-burokrazija tal-ippjanar (u l-kuġini tagħha) kontinwament tagħmel il-wisa’ għal żvilupp bla rażan.  

Din hi l-effettività tal-burokrazija: dejjem fuq in-naħa tar-rgħiba.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 28 ta’ Mejju 2023

Bureaucracy and Stivalaland

Month in month out we are inundated with the latest statistics on property contracts or “promise of sale” agreements. Recently we have had some blips with statistics indicating that property sales were possibly diminishing. Out comes the Malta Developers Association (MDA) supremo thundering that bureaucracy is holding back property deals.

The development permitting process is, generally, greed oriented. It has resulted in so-called flexibility policies which seek to facilitate going around development policy restrictions intended to protect the urban fabric and the quality of life of the residential community. For example, an area earmarked for a public staircase in the Gżira local plan was transformed into a hotel. This is taking place in a residential area where only residences ought to have been permitted. The beneficiary of such land use planning extreme flexibility is the Stivala Group of Companies. I am referring to upper Moroni Street in Gżira, which area has nowadays been labelled as Stivalaland by Gżira residents. Yet the MDA supremo has the cheek to complain.

Developers in Mellieħa were less lucky with flexibility bureaucracy as a hotel permitted in similar circumstances has seen its development permit being recently revoked by the Court of Appeal. The Stivalaland hotel permit in Gżira may possibly meet the same fate in the not-too-distant future as although it has been approved by the Planning Commission some 5 months ago (PA5962/21) the development permit has not been issued yet. Consequently, the time frame for objectors to commence the appeal process has not yet commenced.

Occasionally public opinion manages to pull a fast one. The recent scheduling of the Palazzino Vincenti landmark at St Julians is another area of conflict between the Stivala brand and planning bureaucracy. It is still too early to consider this as a closed case. One awaits with trepidation the next steps notwithstanding the scheduling of the Vincenti masterpiece.

The Stivala brand had planned to pull down Palazzino Vincenti and to develop yet another hotel in St Julians. On 12 December 2022 Palazzino Vincenti was temporarily protected at Grade 1 level through an Emergency Conservation Order. This temporary protection has now been lifted and downgraded to a Grade 2 protection on a long-term basis as decided by the Planning Authority last month. This is extremely bad news as it signifies that most probably only the elevation of this landmark will be preserved: its interior will be gutted. Those who rejoiced at this level of protection were ill-advised. I think that it will be the developer and his advisors who will eventually have the last laugh as they will not be too far from their original objectives!

In this specific case planning bureaucracy will, once more, not be preventing the Stivala brand from making mincemeat of our national heritage, with the Planning Authority’s blessing. And yet the MDA supremo complains.

The planning bureaucracy which the MDA supremo complains about was nowhere to be seen when the Stivala brand sought to stretch development as close as possible to the shoreline. Do you remember? Four years ago, in these very columns, in an article entitled: Protecting Our Coast: No political will in sight (TMIS: 14 April 2019) I had written about the development permit relative to the building block of which the restaurant Piccolo Padre along the St Julian’s coastline forms part. I had then emphasised as follows: “The development in question has been permitted on a footprint starting along the coastline itself. In addition, ………………… planning permission issued by the Planning Authority includes part of the approved structure protruding over the sea. Not even a whimper has been heard from the Lands Authority on the matter.”

Contrary to what the MDA supremo says land use planning bureaucracy, and its cousins, continuously make way for unbridled development.

That is the extent of how effective the bureaucracy is, practically always on the side of greed.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 May 2023

Riforma tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar

Il-Prim Ministru Robert Abela, fid-diskors tiegħu tal-Ewwel ta’ Mejju, qal li ser jagħti bidu għal riforma fil-qasam tal-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art. Ftit li xejn ta’ dettalji. Fi kliemu, imma, kien ċar li kien qed jipprova jsewwi l-ħsara li rriżultat mill-kritika li saret f’dawn il-jiem minn żewġ Sindki Laburisti. Wieħed minnhom (Christian Zammit – Sindku tax-Xagħra) irriżenja, għax xebbgħuh. L-ieħor, Conrad Borg Manché, Sindku tal-Gżira, baqa’ għaddej. Idu msaħħa riżultat ta’ rebħa fil-Qrati li kellu kontra l-Awtorità tal-Artijiet u d-deċiżjoni tagħha li tieħu lura biċċa mill-ġnien tal-Gżira biex tagħmel il-wisa’ għal pompa tal-petrol.

Bħas-soltu, l-Partit Laburista jipprova jingħoġob ma’ kulħadd. Il-Mexxej tal-Partit Laburista ifaħħar l-impenn ambjentali taż-żewġ sindki. Imma oħrajn fit-tmexxija tal-partit, fl-istess ħin, kontinwament jiddefendu lil min qed jagħmlilhom xogħolhom bħala sindki diffiċli.

Il-problema bażika tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar hi li kontinwament tinjora ir-regoli tal-ippjanar tagħha stess. Għal din ir-raġuni, din il-ġimgħa stess, il-Qorti tal-Appell ħassret żewġ deċiżjonijiet oħra tal-istess Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Ir-residenti, kif ukoll uħud mill-kunsilli lokali, kontinwament qed isemmgħu leħinhom kontra kull xorta ta’ deċiżjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-permess għall-iżvilupp mill-ġdid tal-villaġġ tal-Mistra kien ħareġ għall-ewwel darba fl- 2013 għal żvilupp b’għoli ta’ tnax-il sular. Ir-residenti opponew it-tiġdid ta’ dan il-permess minħabba li dan mhux kompatibbli mar-regoli tal-ippjanar li huma fis-seħħ illum. It-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar (EPRT) ma aċċettax l-appell tar-residenti, imma l-Qorti tal-Appell waqqfet kollox u bagħtet il-file lura biex il-każ ikun eżaminat mill-ġdid. Dan, il-Qorti għamlitu, għax ikkonkludiet li t-talbiet tar-residenti ma ġewx eżaminati sewwa mill-EPRT.

Fid-dawl ta’ din id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti tal-Appell ikun floku li wieħed jistaqsi “il-għala, dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet tal-ippjanar, kontinwament jinjoraw ir-regoli”? Xi snin ilu kien l- Ombudsman innifsu li wasal għall-istess konklużjoni.

Dan il-kaz mhux xi eċċezzjoni!

Nhar l-Erbgħa, l-Qorti tal-Appell, tat deċiżjoni oħra, din id-darba dwar żvilupp fil-Mellieħa. Aċċettat appell li sar mill-Kunsill Lokali tal-Mellieħa u ħassret permess ta’ żvilupp għal-lukanda (bil-faċilitajiet anċillari għaliha) liema permess kien inħareg f’żona fejn dan l-iżvilupp ma jistax isir ħlief f’ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali. Din il-lukanda ta’ tmien sulari hi konnessa mal-interessi tal-iżviluppatur Għawdxi Joseph Portelli.

L-applikazzjoni għall-ewwel kien hemm il-parir dwarha (bil-miktub) biex din tkun rifjutata. Imma l-Kummissjoni għall-Kontroll tal-Iżvilupp ma qablitx ma’ dan u approvat il-ħruġ ta’ permess. Dan il-permess ġie ikkonfermat ukoll mit-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar  (EPRT). L-EPRT l-anqas ma qabel li joħroġ ordni biex ma jsirx xogħol fuq is-sit sakemm jinqata’ l-appell. Riżultat ta’ hekk, il-lukanda li issa tilfet il-permess għax dan ġie mħassar mill-Qorti tal-Appell hi issa lesta u mibnija! Ser ikunu meħtieġa alterazzjonijiet sostanzjali u probabbilment partijiet minn dik li hi lukanda jkollhom jitwaqqgħu minħabba li dan l-iżvilupp ibbenefika minn bonus ta’ żewġ sulari extra li jingħataw għall-iżvilupp tal-lukandi! Jiġifieri dawn kellhom żieda ta’ żewġ sulari fuq dak li hu normali f’dawn iż-żoni! Dawn iż-żewġ sulari ma’ jistgħux ikunu approvati f’ċirkustanzi oħra. GħaIhekk ikollhom jaqgħu!

Dan kollu juri kemm hu possibli li bir-regoli tal-ippjanar tal-lum (anke jekk hemm bosta difetti fihom) xorta hu possibli li wieħed jasal għal deċiżjonijiet raġjonevoli kif uriet il-Qorti tal-Appell!  Ovvjament id-deċiżjonijiet ikunu raġjonevoli jekk dawk li jeħduhom ikun kapaci li jimxu mar-regoli dejjem.

L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art hu għan-nies. Kif qed nagħtu każ tan-nies fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art li għandna? Jekk insegwu l-kazijiet diversi hekk kif dawn jiżviluppaw, hu ċar li dawk li huma maħtura biex jassiguraw li l-affarijiet jimxu sewwa, fl-interess tan-nies u tal-kwalità tal-ħajja tagħhom, qed iħarbtu kollox. Dan hu ċar meta wieħed jara d-diversi deċiżjonijiet tal-Qorti,mhux biss dawk li nsemmi hawn fuq, imma bosta oħra ukoll.

Huwa dan li jeħtieġ li jkun indirizzat minn riforma tal-proċess tal-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art. Jeħtieġ nassiguraw li dawk li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet ikunu nies kapaċi jiddeċiedu sewwa: konsistenti u skond ir-regoli fis-seħħ. X’nambuhom ir-regoli jekk b’mod konsistenti jiġu injorati?

Din hi r-riforma meħtieġa fl-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art.

pubblikat fuq Illum:14 ta’ Mejju 2023

Reforming the Planning Authority

Prime Minister Robert Abela, during his May Day speech, hinted that he will embark on a land use planning reform. His speech was very scant on details. It was however clearly an exercise in damage control after the Labour Party has faced sharp criticism from two of its own Mayors, one of whom (Christian Zammit – Xagħra Mayor) has quit the party in disgust. The other, Conrad Borg Manché, Gżira Mayor, soldiers on. His hand has been strengthened as a result of the Gżira Court case win against the Lands Authority and its decision to reduce the size of the Gżira public garden to make way for a fuel station.

The Labour Party is, as always, running with the hares and simultaneously hunting with the hounds. Party Leader Robert Abela lauds his “environmentalist” mayors. Others within the Labour Party hierarchy, however, are busy defending those who are making their life miserable.

The problem with the Planning Authority is that basically it is ignoring its own policies which it is stretching well beyond any elastic limit. Only this week, for this very reason, the Court of Appeal has cancelled two land use planning decisions.

Residents, and some local councils, are up in arms against all sorts of decisions being taken by the Planning Authority. The permit relative to the Mistra Village re-development was originally issued by the Planning Authority in 2013 for a 12-floor high-rise development. The renewal of the development permit was contested by residents on the grounds of its incompatibility with currently existing planning policies. The Environment Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) shot down the residents’ appeal but the Court of Appeal thought otherwise and sent the case back to the drawing board. The Court of Appeal has pointed out that the EPRT had not examined adequately the applicable planning policies to ascertain or otherwise the residents’ claims.

In view of this Court of Appeal decision it is pertinent to ask as to why those taking planning decisions continuously ignore planning policies? Some years back it was the Ombudsman himself who had arrived at a similar conclusion.

This is not a one-off case.

Last Wednesday the Court of Appeal delivered another decision relative to a development in Mellieħa and accepted the Mellieħa Local Councl’s appeal to cancel a development permit for a hotel with related amenities in an area where the local plan forbids hotel development, except in extraordinary circumstances. This eight-floor hotel is linked to the extensive commercial interests of Gozitan construction magnate Joseph Portelli.

The original written recommendation for a refusal of the application was overturned by the Planning Commission. The development permission wassubsequently confirmed by the EPRT. The EPRT also refused to issue an order to halt construction until the planning appeal is determined. As a result, the hotel whose permit has now been repealed is now completed! It will have to be extensively altered and possibly parts of it will now have to be demolished as the constructed hotel even benefitted from an additional two-floor bonus over and above the prevailing permissible height! These two floors are not permissible in other circumstances and will then have to be demolished.

All this proves that even on the basis of existing planning policies (which need substantial improvement) one can arrive at reasonable decisions as clearly demonstrated by the Court of Appeal, if only those running the show are capable of strictly observing the rules.

Land use planning is for people.  How are people and their needs factored in our land use planning? Following the various land use planning cases as they develop, it is clear that land use planning is hijacked by those appointed to run the show. This is crystal clear when one examines the different decisions of the Court of Appeal. This refers not just to the decisions referred to above, but to many others too!

This is what a reform of the planning process should address: ensuring that the land use planning decision takers are capable of taking decisions which are both consistent and in line with existing policy. What do we need policy for if it is consistently ignored?

This is the reform required in land use planning.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 May 2023