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

X’ser inħallu warajna?

Jekk irridu nirreġistraw progress, il-legat li ser inħallu warajna lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jeħtieġ li jkun bosta aħjar minn dak li ħallewlna dawk li ġew qabilna. It-triq meħtieġa biex nirreġistraw dan il-progress għandha tkun il-mira tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li sa nhar il-Ħamis li għadda kienet soġġetta għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika.

Roman Krznaric, fil-ktieb riċenti tiegħu The Good Ancestor jistaqsina mistoqsija diretta: “X’legat ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri? Ser ikunilhom ta’ għajnuna, jew ser ikissirhom?”  Hi mistoqsija li neħtieġu nwieġbu għaliha aħna ukoll, kuljum.

Il-politika dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tagħti tweġiba sura għal din il-mistoqsija. Jekk titmexxa sewwa, din il-poltika tista’ tagħti libsa xierqa lill-futur u dan bħala riżultat ta’ ħidma responsabbli li issir illum.  Dan isir billi nassiguraw li l-ħtiġijiet tagħna illum nissodisfawhom mingħajr ma nikkompromettu l-possibiltà li anke l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jkun possibli għalihom li huma ukoll ikunu f’posizzjoni li jissodifaw il-ħtiġijiet tagħhom.

Dan, fi ftit kliem, jiddependi fuq kemm aħna kapaċi nħarsu fit-tul, il-bogħod, f’dinja li kontinwament tikkostrinġina naħsbu u naġixxu f’termini ta’ mil-lum għal għada. Anzi, jgħidulna “għada min raħ?”

Il-Gvernijiet, minkejja l-ħafna paroli tagħhom, ftit li xejn jagħtu importanza lill-iżvilupp sostenibbli propju minħabba li din mhiex dwar illum, iżda iktar dwar għada u lil hinn minnu.  Hi dwar kif il-ħidma tal-lum ma tkunx ta’ preġudizzju għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Il-politiku ma jagħtix biżżejjed kaz ta’ dan għax l-interess tiegħu ħafna drabi ma jwassalx iktar minn ħames snin: jiġifieri kemm hemm żmien bejn elezzjoni u oħra.  Jeħtieġ li nippjanaw ħafna iktar fit-tul, fl-interess tal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.

Dan il-punt ġie sottolinejat minn Gro Harlem Brundtland li kienet fi żmien Prim Ministru soċjal-demokratiku tan-Norveġja. Dan għamlitu fir-rapport influwenti li ħejjiet fl-1987 għall-Ġnus Magħquda bit-titlu: Our Common Future. F’dan ir-rapport, fost oħrajn, hi emfasizzat li “Naġixxu b’dan il-mod għax naħsbu li nistgħu neħilsuha ħafif: il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri ma jivvutawx; la għandhom poter politiku u l-anqas poter finanzjarju; mhumiex f’posizzjoni li jikkontestaw id-deċiżjonijiet tagħna.” (We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.)

Dan kollu joħroġ ċar mill-kuntrast bejn dak li jipproponi (jew li jħalli barra) l-abbozz ta’ strateġija għall-iżvilupp sostenibbli u l-politika attwali u l-ħidma fil-prattika tal-Gvern.

Ħarsu per eżempju lejn il-politika dwar it-trasport.

L-istrateġija proposta titkellem fit-tul dwar viżjoni u oġġettivi biex jiżdied l-użu tat-trasport pubbliku. Tidentifika mira għall-2030 biex jonqos in-numru ta’ dawk li jsuqu l-karozzi b’41 fil-mija meta dan ikun imqabbel maċ-ċifri tal-1990.

Kliem dan li ħadd ma’ jista’ jemmnu, iktar u iktar meta wieħed iqabblu mal-ħidma f’direzzjoni kompletament opposta li fis-snin passati.

Il-politika tal-Gvern illum tinkoraġixxi l-użu tal-karozzi privati: hi politika li kontinwament tibgħat sinjali konfliġġenti.  Hu sew li l-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tkun indirizzata id-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. F’kuntrast ma’ dan l-oġġettiv il-politika tal-Gvern permezz ta’ investiment massiċċ fl-infrastruttura tat-toroq kif ukoll permezz tas-sussidju tal-petrol/diesel qed twassal messagg kompletament differenti. Messaġġ li ma jħalli l-ebda dubju li l-użu tal-karozzi hu inkoraġġit.

Il-konġestjoni tat-traffiku fit-toroq tagħna mhiex il-kawża tal-problemi tagħna. Fil-fatt din hi l-effett tad-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi. F’dan il-kuntest hu ġustifikat li l-istrateġija timmira lejn tnaqqis sostanzjali fid-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. Fil-fatt m’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ daqshekk karozzi biex nivvjaġġjaw daqstant distanzi qosra. Anke l-istrateġija l-oħra, dik dwar it-Trasport tfakkarna li nofs il-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati huma għal distanzi li jieħdu inqas minn ħmistax-il minuta.

Insibu iktar sinjali kunfliġġenti fl-abbozz tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli.

Numru ta’ miri huma spjegati b’mod ċar, bħall-klima, skart, xiri bi kritierji ambjentali, kwalità tal-arja, bijodiversità, tagħlim għall-ħajja, diġitalizzazzzjoni u l-ħtieġa ta’ għajnuna edukattiva lil studenti emigranti, fost oħrajn. Min-naħa l-oħra, per eżempju, ħlief għal xi kummenti ġenerali ftit li xejn hemm direzzjoni dwar materji li jikkonċernaw l-użu tal-art. Riżorsa għalina skarsa u f’diversi ċirkustanzi użata ħażin kontra l-interess pubbliku.

Fid-dawl tal-gimmicks politiċi kurrenti dwar l-ispazji miftuħa jistona n-nuqqas ta’ referenza għall-ħtieġa li nipproteġu l-ispazju miftuħ diġà eżistenti fiż-żoni urbani u l-irħula tagħna. Dan jinkludi ġonna privati, uħud kbar, li huma taħt assedju mill-ispekulaturi li huma daqstant u kontinwament aġevolati.

Ftit li xejn ukoll hemm referenza għall-importanza li tinħadem l-art agrikola u li din tkun difiża mill-assedju li għaddej mill-forzi spekulattivi. X’utilità hemm li tinvesti  €700 million fi spazji miftuħa meta fl-istess nifs qed jintilfu spazji miftuħa kbar kontinwament u dan riżultat tal-falliment tal-ippjanar fl-użu tal-art?

B’din ir-rata il-legat li ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri huwa wieħed negattiv ħafna.  Inħarsu sal-ponta ta’ mneħirna, mhemmx viżjoni fit-tul.  Dan mhux legat li ser jagħmel il-ġid: ser ikun ta’ ħsara kbira għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Kif qalet Brundtland: dan isir għax il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri m’għandhomx vot!

B’dawn in-nuqqasijiet is-siwi tal-istrateġija proposta dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli hu wieħed limitat. Ikun iktar utli li titfassal mill-ġdid.

ippibblikat fuq Ilum: 12 ta’ Frar 2023

Being Good Ancestors

If we are to register any significant progress, our legacy to future generations should be a substantial improvement of what we ourselves have inherited from our predecessors. The roadmap to achieving this improvement should be the objective of the sustainable development strategy which was subject to public consultation until last Thursday.

Roman Krznaric, in his recent book The Good Ancestor asks a very pointed question: “Will our legacy to future generations be one that benefits them or will be it one that cripples them?” It is the question to which we must provide an answer, day in day out.

The politics of sustainable development seeks to mould such an answer. Properly managed it can shape the future as a result of acting in a responsible manner today. It does so by ensuring that our present-day needs are achieved without compromising the ability of future generations in meeting their own needs. It all boils down to how we can think (and plan) long-term in a short-term world.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, governments do not give sufficient importance to sustainable development as this is not just about today. It is rather about how today’s activity should not prejudice tomorrow and future generations. This is not sufficiently on the radar of today’s politicians. Their interest, generally, does not span more than five years: that is until the next general election. We need to think and plan far more into the future.

This is a point underlined by former Norwegian social democrat Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in her seminal UN Report Our Common Future published in 1987. She emphasised that “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

This is most evident in the contrast between what the draft sustainable development strategy proposes (or omits) and the actual policy and practice of government.

Consider for example, the issue of transport policy.

The proposed sustainable development strategy speaks at length on vision and objectives relative to an increased use of public transport. It even identifies as a 2030 target the reduction of car drivers through the use of the following words: reduce the modal share of car drivers to 41% compared to 1990.

No one in his right senses can believe a single word of this statement in view of the fact that there has been a considerable effort in the past years in a completely opposite direction!

Current government policy encourages the use of private cars and continuously sends conflicting signals. The sustainable development strategy rightly seeks to address car dependency. In contrast to this objective government policy, through investing heavily in new road infrastructure and through the subsidisation of fuels sends a completely different signal: one which without a shadow of doubt encourages car dependency.

The congestion of our roads is not the cause of our problems: it is the effect of our malady which is car dependency. Hence it is right that the strategy aims to address and reduce car dependency. We do not need so many cars to travel the short distances so prevalent in this country! As our Transport Master Plan reminds us, 50 per cent of private car trips are for distances taking less than 15 minutes.

We find other conflicting signals in the draft strategy on sustainable development.

While there are a number of specific objectives spelled out in clear language (for example: climate change, waste, green purchasing, air quality, biodiversity, lifelong learning, digitalisation, migrant induction learning …….) beyond some general comments and observations, I fail to see any emphasis on land use issues. This is not right in view of the limited availability of land and its rampant misuse, contrary to the public interest.

In view of the current political gimmicks relative to open spaces one cannot but note the omission from the strategy on any reference to the urgent need to protect existing open space in our urban areas and in our villages. This includes large private gardens continuously targeted by speculative forces on the good books of this administration. 

There is also scant reference to the need to safeguard agricultural land. What is the purpose in investing €700 million in open spaces if we are losing existing ones at an exponential rate as a result of the current practise of land use planning?

At this rate the legacy to future generations is generally negative. The short-term view is completely obliterating any possible long-term view. This is not a beneficial legacy; it is rather a very crippling one. As Brundtland pointed out: this is done as future generations have no vote!

We need to go back to the drawing board and have the strategy redrafted.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 February 2023

The accelerated destruction of agricultural land

We live in an eco-system which is being slowly destroyed. This is recognised by one and all.

Consider, for example the introductory sentences in the White Paper entitled Acquisition and ownership of agricultural land published for public consultation by the Ministry for Agriculture last October. We were then told that: Controlling the acquisition and ownership of land is fundamental to guaranteeing the sustainability of agriculture and food production, as well as the protection of the rural environment. For this reason, whenever there are issues in this area, these not only affect farmers but also have a strong impact on the supply and security of food and the quality of the environment that can be enjoyed by society.

Agricultural land has value. Its value is not just economic. It has an environmental and social value. This is recognised as a fact even by the Ministry for Agriculture. Why then, may we ask, does the Ministry not take a robust stand whenever other Ministries embark on a spree of accelerated destruction of agriculture land?

On a continuous basis the Planning Authority receives and processes applications for development which seek to obliterate agricultural land. This is done for the simple reason that the local plans are buttressed by a land use planning philosophy which fails to protect the intrinsic value of agriculture. It is deemed to be expendable. The Ministry for Agriculture, in this situation, is conspicuously silent, continuously!

Unfortunately, the only value which the Planning Authority understands and appreciates is that which facilitates “making hay while the sun shines”. It has been continuously an accomplice in the gradual destruction of all that surrounds us.

Unnecessary road infrastructure has gobbled up considerable swathes of agricultural land over the past years. The private sector has been transforming considerable agricultural tracts into barbeque or picnic areas squeezing out the farming community in the process. The Planning Authority has the legal remit to stop this but it has continuously failed to act. Until the recent public outcry in response to a number of Court decisions relative to agricultural leases, the Ministry for Agriculture has been silent on this matter too!

Two specific planning development applications (currently still pending) come to mind: one in Qormi to construct and operate a supermarket on agricultural land Outside the Development Zone (ODZ). The other relative to the construction of a school on agricultural land at Għaxaq.

We have been through the relative arguments many a time, in particular when debating the site selection exercise for the American University at Marsaskala some years back! The arguments made then are still valid today. We cannot keep sacrificing agricultural land. We have too little of it and we have to take care of the little we have.

The application form for the Għaxaq school declares black on white that the current use of the site is agricultural: each and every one of the 35,970 square metres of the site. The application form for the Qormi site, on the other hand states that the site measuring 4708 square metres which it is proposed to develop into a supermarket is currently “un-used”.

These planning applications are still in their early stages, even though an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) has been produced for the proposed Għaxaq development.

At this point we need to query: do we need the development proposed? The answer, in my opinion is a clear no. We definitely do not need more supermarkets. There are already too many of them.

As to the proposed school at Għaxaq the issue is much more complex. It does not however justify sacrificing more agricultural land. Other solutions should be explored, even though a search for an alternative has been going on unsuccessfully for quite some time. The solution lies in the redevelopment of existing dilapidated buildings of which we have quite a number.

We do however need policy coherence in respect of the protection of agricultural land. The Ministry of Agriculture should be at the forefront in such an exercise. It could definitely start by ensuring that public projects as well as policies factor in agriculture’s intrinsic value. This is the required starting point. The public sector sets the benchmark. If it fails to turn the page, matters will definitely change from bad to worse!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 January 2023

Għas-servizz tal-ispekulaturi

Il-ħatra ta’ Marthese Portelli bħala Direttur Ġenerali tal-Assoċjazzjoni tal-Iżviluppaturi Maltin (MDA) hi mossa intelliġenti min-naħa ta’ Sandro Chetcuti. Hi mossa li ġiet ippreżentata bħala pass il-quddiem fl-organizzazzjoni aħjar tal-iżviluppaturi, imma fl-istess ħin tikxef il-PN kif inhu verament : li taħt il-maskra tapasi favur l-ambjent hemm realtà ta’ xorta oħra. Is-servizz tal-ispekulaturi.

L-għażla tal-ex Membru Parlamentari Marthese Portelli mill-MDA hi pass biex jippreżentaw ruħhom b’mod iktar rispettabbli fil-konfront ta’ dawk li jiddarsu mill-assoċjazzjoni ta’ Sandro Chetcuti mar-raba’ sular tal-Partit Laburista taħt it-tmexxija ta’ Keith Schembri l-Kasco. B’daqqa ta’ pinna l-assoċjazzjoni tal-MDA issa hi maż-żewġ partiti l-kbar. Sandro jibqa’ dejjem interessat fiż-żewġ supermarkets politiċi, dejjem ifettex l-offerti tat-tnejn biex jara x’jaqbel fl-interess tal-ispekulazzjoni u tal-ispekulaturi. Sandro hu konsistenti favur l-interess tal-membri tal-MDA.

Fid-dawl tal-ħatra ta’ Marthese Portelli dak li qalet fuq issues ambjentali u l-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art tul is-snin, issa jiġi mifli għall-kuntrasti u l-kontradizzjonijiet li bla dubju ser jibdew jirriżultaw. Tul ix-xhur li ġejjin naraw il-kuntrast bejn dak li qalet fil-passat u dak li ser tipprova tiddefendi jew tipproponi fil-futur.

F’dan il-kuntest, dak li qal riċentement Adrian Delia dwar Marthese Portelli jassumi sinifikat ikbar: Ma’ Marthese Portelli dejjem taf fejn int. Tgħid?

Pjani Lokali tal-lastku

Meta l-Pjani Lokali kienu approvati, kien l-ewwel darba li f’Malta sar attentat biex ikun regolat l-iżvilupp fuq livell lokali bis-serjetà. Il-ħtieġa kienet ilha tinħass is-snin. L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art b’mod professjonali, f’Malta, beda fl-1989 bil-proċess iwassal għall-ħolqien tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar.

Għall-bidu, kif jispjega b’mod ċar fil-pjan ta’ struttura, kien ippjanat li jkun hemm 24 pjan lokali għall-Malta u Għawdex, imma imbagħad spiċċajna b’sebgħa. Ħames Pjani Lokali kienu approvati fl-2006, bit-tnejn l-oħra jkunu approvati iktar kmieni: dak dwar il-Bajja ta’ Marsaxlokk fl-1995 u dak dwar il-Port il-Kbir fl-2002.

Meta l-pjani lokali kienu mfassla, oriġinalment għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika, kienu meqjusa bħala restrittivi għax ftit kienu jħallu lok għal diskrezzjoni. Sa dakinnhar ħadd ma kien għadu fassal il-politika dwar l-użu tal-art b’mod hekk ċar, b’mod li jnaqqas il-lok għall-abbuż kif ukoll il-poter assolut vestit f’persuna waħda:il-politku. Dakinnhar kien hemm resistenza konsiderevoli li l-affarijiet isiru b’dan il-mod. Dan jispjega għaliex dawn il-pjani lokali damu ħafna ma saru. Hija ukoll ir-raġuni li wasslet għal dak li nirreferu għalih bħala l-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni li bħala riżultat tiegħu meded kbar ta’ art, madwar żewġ miljun metru kwadru, fil-parti l-kbira art agrikola, fl-2006, kienu ddikjarati mill-Parlament bħala li tajbin għall-iżvilupp.

Il-pjani lokali huma essenzjalment dokumenti miktuba li fihom hemm spjegata l-politika lokali dwar l-użu tal-art flimkien ma mapep li jillustraw din il-politika. Tul is-snin dawn il-pjani lokali ġew ikkumplimentati b’dokumenti oħra dwar materji speċifiċi. Kważi kollha b’ċertu ammont ta’ kontroversja marbuta magħhom. Dwar dawn ktibt diversi drabi f’dawn il-paġni.

F’Jannar 2013, wara perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni kif trid il-liġi, l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar kellha f’idejha dokument ieħor li kien approvat: nirreferu għalih bħala l-politka tal-flessibilità. Huwa intitolat : Partial Review of Subsidiary Plans: General Policy relating to Regeneration/Consolidation initiatives. L-iżviluppaturi (u l-periti tagħhom) flimkien mal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar jinterpretaw dan id-dokument bħala li jagħtihom mano libera biex jiddeċiedu dwar liema huma dawk il-partijiet tal-Pjani Lokali li għandhom jinjoraw.
Sfortunatament uffiċjali tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, spiss wisq, jaġixxu qieshom għandhom xi dritt divin li jiddeċiedu dwar liema huma dawk ir-regoli tal-ippjanar li għandhom japplikaw u liema huma dawk li għandhom jinjoraw.

Kaz speċifiku qam quddiem il-Bord tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa dwar żvilupp propost fuq biċċa art kbira fil-Mellieħa. Il-Pjan Lokali tal-Majjistral jipprovdi li ma jistgħux jinbnew lukandi fiż-żona residenzjali fejn hemm din l-art. Imma l-uffiċjali tad-Direttorat tal-Ippjanar, friski daqs ħassa, jirreferu għall-politika dwar il-flessibilità bl-addoċċ u jirrakkomandaw li l-lukanda proposta hi aċċettabbli. .

L-applikazzjoni tal-politika dwar il-flessibilità fl-ippjanar hi limitata mill-kundizzjonijiet fid-dokument imsemmi iktar il-fuq. Il-limitazzjoni prinċipali hi li l-flessibilità ma tistax tmur kontra l-linja ġenerali stabilita fil-Pjani Lokali. Għax il-politika dwar l-ippjanar għandha tkun flessibli imma mhux tkun tal-lastku!

Numru ta’ deċiżjonijiet li ħadet l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ibbażati fuq din l-interpretazzjoni skorretta tal-politika tal-flessibilità kienu kkontestati fit-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni għall-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar u fil-Qrati u kienu mħassra. Fid-dawl ta’ dawn id-deċiżjonijiet, jiena ma nistax nifhem kif l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar ma tikkoreġix il-posizzjoni tagħha.

Inizzjalment l-applikazzjoni inkorretta tal-politika tal-flessibilità fl-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art setgħet titqies bħala żball. Imma meta dan l-iżball jibqa’ jkun repetut ma jibqax żball iżda jsir abbuż ta’ poter li għandu jkun indirizzat immedjatament.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 3 ta’ Marzu 2019

The elasticity of the Local Plans

The Local Plans currently in force, when they were approved, were a first serious attempt in these islands to regulate development at a local level. The need had been felt for far too long. Professional land use planning in Malta started in earnest in 1989 with the process leading to the setting up of the Planning Authority.

Originally, as clearly explained in the Structure Plan, it was planned to have 24 local plans for the Maltese Islands, but we ended up with just seven. Five local plans were approved in 2006, with the other two having been approved earlier: the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan in 1995 and the Grand Harbour Local Plan in 2002.

When the local plans were originally drafted for public consultation they were considered as highly restrictive. It was then unheard of to clearly define policy, reducing loopholes and absolute power vested in one person, the politician. There was then considerable resistance to such a course of action. This is the major reason for the long gestation period of these plans. It is also the reason which led to what is known as the rationalisation exercise as a result of which large stretches of land, around two million square metres, mostly agricultural land, was in 2006 declared by Parliament as suitable for development.

Local plans are essentially written statements containing local land use policies and policy maps illustrating the said policies. Over the years the local plans have been buttressed by supplementary guidance with specific policy documents containing a varying degree of controversy, about which I have written extensively in these columns over the years.

In January 2013, after the statutory consultation period, planning policy acquired an additional document, commonly referred to as the flexibility policy. It is entitled: Partial Review of Subsidiary Plans: General Policy relating to Regeneration/Consolidation initiatives. Developers (and their architects) as well as the Planning Authority tend to interpret this policy document as giving them a free hand in determining the extent to which they may depart from provisions of the Local Plans.

Unfortunately, Planning Authority officials tend to assume too often that they have some God-given right to decide which planning policies to apply and which to ignore.

A specific case came before the Planning Authority Board earlier this week relative to a large site in Mellieħa. The North West Local Plan provides that no new hotels can be developed in the residential area of which this site forms part. Yet, invoking the above-quoted flexibility policy officials at the Planning Directorate did not bat an eyelid and recommended that the proposed hotel was acceptable development.

Application of the planning flexibility policy is limited by the conditions set out in the policy, primarily that the general thrust or direction given by specific policies in the Local Plan is not to be superseded. Planning policy may be flexible but it should certainly not be elastic!

A number of decisions taken by the Planning Authority based on such an incorrect interpretation of the flexibility policy have been contested in the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal as well as in Court and were reversed. Faced with such decisions I fail to understand why the Planning Authority does not correct its ways.

Initially the incorrect application of the planning flexibility policy could have been considered as a case of wrongful interpretation of policy. Repetition can only be construed as an abuse of authority and should be dealt with accordingly.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 3 March 2019