2015: The birth of Labour’s planning machine

Environmentalists can expect a busy year as the government approves a new law regulating planning and environmental protection, new local plans with the possibility of new development boundaries, a fast-track planning procedure for developments within development zones and to take decisions on land reclamation, the Gozo airstrip and the White Rocks development.

New local plans, new boundaries?

The 2006 local plans approved by former Minister George Pullicino paved the way for an onslaught of development, which has altered the townscapes of towns and villages. It was also accompanied by an extension of ODZ boundaries whose impact is still being felt.

Nine years later the new government is expected to issue new local plans for public consultation. The present seven local plans are expected to be replaced by just three generic plans.

The 1992 Structure Plan had envisaged the preparation of 24 Local Plans as well as Plans covering Rural Conservation Areas. Instead the previous government had opted for seven local plans covering six regions and one locality. By their very nature Local Plans are intended to cover a small area and consequently to address the potential development in such areas through appropriate policies, which may need to be, and generally are specific to the area.  The decision to streamline policies in just 3 plans is in itself an indication of the government’s insensitiveness to local realities. 

The approval of the new local plans could also bring about new development boundaries. Junior planning minister Michael Falzon refuses to rule out an extension of boundaries, insisting that even from “an aesthetic point of view it would make sense to include lands which were left out unfairly” in the 2006 extension of boundaries. Any such extension would be in breach of a promise made by Joseph Muscat before the general election not to touch development boundaries.

A SPED instead of a structure plan

A draft Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), which lacks any specific policies but is composed entirely of guidelines was presented in March 2014 and is set to be approved this year. This will replace the Structure Plan approved in 1992, which includes stringent policies including some which were never implemented, such as the one calling for the public ownership of the coastline.

Instead the draft SPED includes specific proposals for tourism development on “previously developed land in Comino”.

This in itself could pave the way for an extension of the Comino hotel owned by the Tumas, Gasan and Mizzi groups.

The document, which will serve as the general guide for planning decisions, foresees the development of an airstrip, a cruise liner terminal and a yacht marina in Gozo.

No such proposals were made in a similar document issued by the previous government in February 2012, which also included a commitment that “the government shall not amend the development boundaries approved in 2006”.

Instead, the new document proposes an appraisal of the 2006 development zone boundaries, to make way for minor adjustments.

These adjustments may include the addition of new parcels of land to the development zone and the exclusion of other parcels from the development zone.

The SPED also makes a direct reference to the need of providing a framework for the “spatial planning of land reclamation” and to agri-tourism in the countryside.

The whole document will be submitted to a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) before approval and will be approved by parliament before the formulation of the new local plans.

In part, the issue of the revised SPED document for public consultation before the approval of a number of planning policies and the choice of bidders for the land reclamation project addresses the criticism made by environmentalists that the government should first formulate its vision before changing specific policies.

But the inclusion of a number of controversial projects in the most important planning policy of all, could well ensure a fast-track approval of these projects in the future.

Re-exhuming the Gozo airstrip

During a pre-electoral visit to Gozo on 16 February before the election, Muscat declared that an airstrip was not a priority for the PL, but that a helicopter service, along with a fast ferry service between Mgarr and Valletta, would be considered.

Stopping the application for the Gozo airstrip was one of Alfred Sant’s first decisions as prime minister in 1996, after withdrawing the country from NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme and freezing EU membership.

After being dropped by Alfred Sant, the project was abandoned by Eddie Fenech Adami in 1998. While not excluding the project completely, former tourism and environment minister Mario de Marco raised doubts on its sustainability.

“One also needs to consider whether an airstrip in Gozo and enhanced accessibility can actually impact negatively the perception of the island that lures tourists to it,” de Marco told MaltaToday in 2010.

The writing was already on the wall when in February 2010 Roderick Galdes – then shadow minister for planning – had already announced that the development of an airstrip is one of the options a Labour government would consider to ensure better connectivity between Malta and Gozo.

But following criticism, subsequently the party backtracked on its plans after environmental NGOs and Labour MP Justyne Caruana reiterated their opposition to the proposal.

One major obstacle to the project is the presence of archaeological remains in the vicinity of Ta’ Lambert, the site identified for the project since the mid-90s. These remains have been compromised by illegal dumping. According to a study by the Museums Department, in the mid-90s, an archaeological assessment of the land earmarked for the airstrip proved “virtually impossible”.

The government has recently presented an application for EU funding for the airstrip and has committed itself in the budget in favour of the project.

White rocks or elephants?

Economy Minister Chris Cardona has tied his political future to the success of a call for expressions of interest for the redevelopment of the White Rocks area into a luxury real estate project. Developers submitting their EOIs for the 45-hectare site, of which the White Rocks complex covers 38%, were informed that part of the site is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

While any development will need to adhere to rules governing the management of Natura 2000 sites, a spokesperson for Minister Chris Cardona insisted that this designation does not preclude all sorts of development.

“It should be remembered that Natura 2000 is not a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded. The emphasis will be on ensuring that future management is sustainable, both ecologically and economically.”

The Habitats Directive of the EU designated the garigue adjacent to the abandoned White Rocks site as a Special Area of Conservation, which forms part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. 

This stretch of karstland between the existing complex and the Armed Forces’ shooting ranges is accorded a level 3 protection which effectively precludes any residential or tourism related development: in 2001, MEPA rejected a golf course for the area. The coastal zone enjoys an even higher level of protection, which precludes any development.

The White Rocks EOI highlights all ecologically and historically sensitive areas on the site. 

Development on the White Rocks is still governed by a 1995 development brief limiting construction to the space occupied by the derelict complex. But the 1995 brief covered 369,000 square metres; the area included in today’s EOI occupies a considerably larger footprint of 450,000 square metres.

The 1995 brief subdivided the White Rocks area in three zones: Zone 1 (38%) consisted of the existing holiday complex and its facilities; Zone 2 (39%) is the mixed garigue and rocky coastline; Zone 3 (23%) is agricultural land. Apart from an underground structure in Zone 2, which should be rehabilitated, only Zone 1 was to be released for development.

The present EOI makes reference to the 1995 brief in highlighting the sensitive ecological and historical areas in the land. But while promising to respect the 1995 brief, the economy ministry said that the EOI “should be seen as an exploration of innovative ideas” which have to be implemented within the framework set by the development brief.

The sea as the next frontier

Last year, the government received 21 proposals for land reclamation projects, after it issued a call for expressions of interest that closed in December.

A decision on which of these projects will be chosen is expected in 2015.

Junior Minister Michael Falzon has already made it clear that the government will not go for 21 land reclamation projects.

 “At this stage we have a clear idea on where we can start and it is clearly not our intention to go for 21 projects at one go,” he has said.

 Falzon does not exclude that these projects will include a real estate component even if he excludes “standalone real estate projects”. 

The ecologically sensitive Bahar ic-Caghaq area is one of the sites being considered for land reclamation. But land reclamation projects in Gozo and on the entire stretch of shoreline between Birzebbugia and Cirkewwa are being excluded.

According to Michael Falzon land reclamation will not consist in “standalone real estate projects” but he acknowledged that some investors would be looking at recovering their investment through some real estate.

In June MaltaToday revealed that the construction of an artificial island along the coast road opposite Qalet Marku is one of the preferred options among the 21 land reclamation proposals made by 17 companies, which are currently being considered by government officials.

No policy currently exists to regulate land reclamation but the new Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, which is set to replace the structure plan, includes a reference to land reclamation. 

Bahar ic-Caghaq was one of two sites, along with the area between Xghajra and Marsaskala, identified for land reclamation in a study by Danish consultants Carl Bro in 2005.

But a subsequent report by British consultants Scott Wilson exploring different land reclamation shapes in these two sites excluded land reclamation in the Bahar ic-Caghaq area because of the ecological impact on posidonia meadows, which are protected by EU law, even if it concluded that development in this area was the most financially sustainable.

Malta can still cite an “overriding national interest” to justify development in breach of EU laws protecting posidonia meadows.

The report concluded that land reclamation is not a “viable” way to dispose of construction waste and that land reclamation could only become financially viable if accompanied by real estate development.

Taking the E out of MEPA

The government is also expected to fulfil its promise to separate the environmental from the planning arm of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, MEPA. Following years where MEPA was already perceived as biased against the environment, the split may be welcomed by the public even if it could result in sidelining the environment even more. This will require a change of the law approved in 2010, which tilted the balance in favour of environmental protection after decades of rampant abuses. 

In March 2014 a draft consultation document for MEPA’s new split authority envisioned the legalisation of illegal developments in scheduled and ODZ areas – reversing the ‘ODZ is ODZ’ policy of 2010. Article 70 of the Environment and Development Planning Act enacted by the previous government in December 2010 prohibited the MEPA from regularising any illegal developments built in ODZ or scheduled areas.

The sixth schedule of the Environment and Development Planning Act also bans MEPA from regularising any illegal extension to ODZ development.

Aerial photos taken in May 2008 were used to determine whether development had been carried out after this date, to assist MEPA in refusing any requests to ‘sanction’ these extensions.

According to the consultation document, the deletion of the sixth schedule will be replaced by the imposition of daily fines: ostensibly, this would mean that daily fines start being incurred from the day somebody applies to regularise their illegal development, to the date that MEPA issues permission.

Fast track permits

The radical shake-up of the planning authority will see building permits being approved in two months if they conform to policy requirements.

This would address one of the main public grievances against MEPA and may be a major vote winner among a segment of the population even if it could create more resentment among neighbours who will have less time to present objections. 

Under government proposals to split the environment and planning functions of the current authority, the fast track approach will be adopted for applications within development zones.

A full planning procedure will still be required for developments carried out outside development zones.  

This would mean that developments within building zones would be carried out in the absence of a public hearing and a case officer report.