‘Back to the 1980s’ – FAA verdict on new planning rules

The government’s proposal that the Minister responsible for planning  “can make regulations to regularize illegal development,  takes the country 30 years back, environmental NGO Flimkien Ghall Ambjent Ahjar said. 

The proposal was made in the ‘Efficient Planning System’ consultation document which according to the NGO “effectively dismantles all the checks and protective regulations that have been built into the planning system over the last years”.

According to the NGO the proposal through which the scheduling of listed building can be reviewed after 10 years means that no heritage building will ever be safe.

Instead of assisting owners to maintain heritage buildings, this provision will encourage the neglect of historical buildings as it would encourage owners to neglect these buildings in order to later claim that they no longer have any heritage value and can be de-scheduled.

It also condemned the decision to allow the sanctioning of development in ODZ areas.

"This means that the countryside and scheduled areas like areas of ecological and scientific importance will once again exposed to illegal building, since it will now be possible to regularise such abuse. This provision will invariably encourage ‘build first, sanction later’ construction abuse".

The NGO condemned the reintroduction of outline permits abolished in the MEPA reform carried out in 2010. 

It also expressed concern on the fact that the Environment and Resources Authority will not represented on the MEPA Executive Council which is to determine planning policies.

It also described as “hallow tokenism” the presence of a member from an eNGO and from the Environment Authority on the MEPA Planning.

As regards the revocation of permits, the document qualifies that error on the face of the record, ''means an error made by the Authority in reaching a decision and such error is apparent from the record of its proceedings and which error offends against the law”. “Where does that leave fraudulent information submitted by the developer?” the NGO asked.

It is described as outrageous a proposal through which  a substantial change in the external appearance or design”and “a change in the location of vehicular access from a different street frontage as “minor changes to plans” on which objectors will not be even  informed.