Local plans: How Labour acts like the PN is still in power

While the 2006 local plans did contain positive aspects like the designation of a number of green enclaves in urban areas, and the delineation of urban conservation areas (UCAs), this massive redrawing of development zones has had far-reaching consequences for Malta.

They included the infamous ‘rationalisation’ of development boundaries, which increased building zones and led to an unprecedented urban sprawl which is still incomplete.

And they also condemned large sites like Manoel Island, Ħondoq ir-Rummien, the Naxxar trade fair area and Mistra ridge to mega-development projects. Marsaskala bay was also earmarked for a yacht marina, albeit this was conditional on feasibility and environmental studies and tied to commercial development in the ex-national pool at Żonqor.

1. Local plans are already being changed

The local plans approved in 2006 are not cast in stone.

In fact, there have been a number of occasions when these have been changed through planning control (PC) applications to change the zoning of particular areas, often to facilitate new developments.

For example, the site presently occupied by the Centerparc shopping mall in Qormi which was designated in the local plan for warehousing, was subsequently rezoned to accommodate retail development.

Local plans have been amended to permit five-storey high retail development in Burmarrad, to remove height restrictions for factories in Mrieħel, and to allow residential development on the Ħal Far barracks site. Land in Żonqor was transferred for the development of a private university campus, even though the ODZ (outside development zone) component of the project had been zoned as a national park in the local plan, which means the local plan is yet to be amended before any development is carried out.

So nothing stops the Planning Authority from piecemeal changes to local plans.

In the case of Marsaskala, the government or the PA can change the local plan to remove the yacht marina zoning.

And while government had claimed compensation claims as the reason not to change the designation of Ħondoq ir-Rummien as a yacht marina site, no such claims can be made with regards to the Marsaskala marina, as this will be located on public land.

Unfortunately, while the planning control mechanism has often been used to permit new development not foreseen in local plans, this mechanism has rarely been used to limit development

2. New local plans can open a can of worms

New local plans could see owners of land proposing more land for development... but there are ways to keep the lid on this can of worms.

There is a difference between piecemeal revision to the local plans, and brand new local plans which cover the whole island.

Environmentalists are understandably wary of re-opening a can of worms which could see the planning process once again drowned by requests to maximise the financial values of individual plots and properties. A similar process by the newly-elected Labour administration in 2013 simply resulted in hundreds of requests for additions to the building zones. In Gozo, according to information tabled in parliament, almost 500 requests were made for an extension of boundaries.

Nationally, the process attracted 4,000 submissions, mostly from landowners who had missed the bus in 2006 and were keen on taking a ride on Labour’s new bus. The demands were so blatant that even a pro-development Labour administration had cold feet, especially following the resurgence of the environmental movement after the Żonqor protests of 2016, and subsequent campaigns spearheaded by Moviment Graffitti.

Moreover citizens, many of whom are property owners in their own right, can be torn between their desire to limit development to improve their quality of life, and pecuniary interests to maximize the value of their land and property.

Experience shows that while residents are likely to mobilise against immediate threats to their environment, they are less likely to engage themselves in technical discussions related to zoning, building heights and classification of land.

If pecuniary benefits stemming from taller buildings or extended boundaries are not excluded before the process commences, it will only be natural that the most vociferous will be those who own land which could appreciate in value thanks to changes in local plans.

Yet this raises the question: how can we redress the environmental deficit created by the 2006 local plans and subsequent tinkering of policies which amplified the negative impact?

3. Labour aggravated the environmental harm of the local plans. These can be ditched even in the absence of any local plan changes

Design guidelines approved in 2015, translating heights in floors to height in metres, simply condemned most Maltese and Gozitan towns and villages to five-storey developments. This was accompanied by changes to sanitary regulations, lowering the height of each floor. In short, these guidelines made the redevelopment of entire blocks more lucrative than ever.

Other policies which contributed to the urban sprawl included new policies allowing extra heights on old people’s homes and hotels, and a rural policy approved in 2014 that gave the PA the magic wand to turn piles of rubble into stores and villas.

These policies can be scrapped immediately before waiting for any change in local plans. The Nationalist opposition is also bound to tell us which policies it will ditch, which policies it will keep and which it will change.

4. Changing SPED should precede new local plans

Environment and planning minister Aaron Farrugia himself has rightly excluded a change in local plans before a review of the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, which ranks highest in the hierarchy of planning regulations. But much depends on how this is changed.

For example, the present SPED simply states that land outside development zones must remain ‘approximately’ the same as today, which leaves room for further tinkering on individual plots. Instead, the new policy could make it clear that no presently ODZ land is ever added to the development zone. The SPED could further limit development by enshrining solar rights (as once contemplated by Labour_ and by giving the PA greater flexibility in turning down developments which although within policy, constitute over-development in particular areas.

5. Changing local plans can be an opportunity for communities to reimagine Malta

If the local plan process is limited by a new SPED overruling any extension of ODZ boundaries or any increase in building heights, local communities and environmentalists will be the ones calling the shots, as developers and property owners will have nothing to gain from the process over and above what they have today.

This will also facilitate the democratisation of a process solely aimed at making our towns and villages liveable.

Rather than only having six regional local plans, as is the case today, one could have detailed plans for each of Malta’s 68 localities, with the new local plans delineating new open spaces and enclaves in each locality.

Such plans should be designed with involvement of local councils, citizens assembled in physical and virtual town hall meetings and committees of village elders, focus groups of randomly selected citizens, locality stakeholders and NGOs.

Obviously, the Planning Authority on an equal footing with ERA and Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, should still give technical input to councils in drafting these local plans.

The golden rule should be that all meetings related to local plans are made public and streamed.

One crucial aspect of the new plans should be that of extending urban green enclaves and granting these areas the same status as ODZ. The second crucial aspect is a revision of height policies in a way which respects local character and avoid the canyon effect. The third crucial aspect is to extend UCAs and protect the character of traditional neighbourhoods. It remains incomprehensible why areas like Fleur de Lys were not included in UCAs.

6. The government should build a strong legal case for changing local plans rather than use hypothetical compensation claims based on ‘development rights’ as an excuse for not changing anything

Where there is a will there is a way.

Policies which gave owners new development rights as was the case with the abusive fuel station policy approved in 2015, have already been changed in a more restrictive way. And in doing so, the government has faced no legal challenge whatever despite excluding all agricultural plots from such developments.

For the degeneration of our towns and villages is rooted in an accumulation of different policies approved in the past twenty years with the sole aim of changing goal-posts in favour of developers.

Unfortunately, without even publishing the legal advice given to it, government has claimed that any restriction of development rights enshrined in local plans would result in massive compensation claims by owners. And despite its supposedly newfound green credentials, the Nationalist opposition is committed not to take away any development rights enshrined in local plans, ensuring that any PN victory would leave the status quo intact.

Still, experts in European law who spoke to MaltaToday have dismissed the legal basis of ‘development rights’, citing a number of cases decided at European level where similar claims have already been shot down.

What is sure is that with regards to the environment, Malta has to start with a clean slate, freed from the shackles of past mistakes. Ultimately the greatest obstacle to reform remains the perception that the state is in bed with developers.

For who would trust politicians who are in the pockets of developers, with tinkering with local plans?