Planning reform: Appeasement, cancer and bad faith

Robert Abela was simply being disingenuous on Sunday when quoting anecdotes of people suffering from cancer to justify the planning reform he wants to introduce.

It is a shame the prime minister used illness to counter the widespread criticism of his reform. Critics are “either misinformed or acting in bad faith”, Abela said. He reiterated that assertion outside parliament on Monday when he told activists they were misrepresenting the reform.

We wonder whether he was also referring to Labour Party President Alex Sciberras, who put out two Facebook posts in the space of 24 hours, raising concern about government’s bills and suggesting changes to them.

The prime minister insisted on Sunday his planning reform would introduce “discipline, clarity and certainty” to the planning process. For ordinary, honest law-abiding citizens, it will not. On the contrary, it will regularise indiscipline and promote uncertainty. As for clarity; the only clear thing is that government is bending over backwards to appease developers and wrongdoers.

The government is proposing giving the Planning Board discretionary power to make decisions that deviate from existing policies based on spatial, architectural, or contextual considerations. In short, the board members are being given the power to go against the policies that should be guiding their decisions. A policy’s inherent function is to ensure certainty. If board members are going to be given discretionary powers to ignore policy, that is the antithesis of certainty—it becomes a jungle.

So, a board may decide to use its discretionary powers to allow Mr X to build an apartment block of seven floors even if this goes against policy but shoot down Ms Y’s application for a seven-storey block citing policy limitations. In this way, the board would open itself up to claims of favouritism. It will simply create uncertainty because policies will become meaningless.

And with the government proposing an amnesty on illegal development, it is baffling how the prime minister can even argue the changes will bring about discipline. Awarding wrongdoers seems to be Abela’s mantra. If Abela is concerned about those he describes as ‘victims’ of the system—people who would have bought a property that is then deemed illegal by the courts—his government should embark on an educational and information campaign to urge those purchasing property to ensure that they also verify the planning status, apart from the customary legal searches, of the property at hand.

But maybe when the prime minister spoke of clarity and certainty, he actually meant giving clarity and certainty to those who broke the law and did as they pleased. These people will finally get peace of mind that the illegal works they carried out will no longer be subject to enforcement procedures. Indeed, these are the people who will agree with Abela that the reform will introduce discipline, clarity and certainty… for them.

As for those who always obeyed the law, adhered to planning policies, sought to amend applications to conform with requests made by the authority there is no reward. The honest citizens of this country will have to shut up and lump the fact that wrongdoing pays well in this country.

The truth about the planning changes Abela wants introduced is that they will end up benefitting the Michael Stivalas, the Anton Camilleris, the Sandro Chetcutis, the Silvio Debonos, the Charles Polidanos and the Joseph Portellis, of this world. The cancer patients and the elderly couples cited by Abela to justify the reform are just a side show. The sop stories are just an excuse to justify the demands of those who want their illegal swimming pools sanctioned, their towers to go higher, their sprawling illegal buildings blessed by Abela’s magic touch, and their villas in outside development zones to be green-lighted.

This reform is way more profound than the changes Abela had promised more than two years ago to the appeals system so that works are suspended until all stages of appeal are exhausted. Instead, Abela took the indecent road of ploughing ahead with proposals over which there was no dialogue with NGOs and residents.

The only people Abela talked to were the developers. They were feted, listened to and appeased. And then, the prime minister had the gall to accuse critics of acting in bad faith.