Local plan revision | Are we going back to the past?

Back in August 2006, local plans which had been hibernating in draft form for a number of years were suddenly published - right in the middle of the summer holiday season - opening the floodgates for development in Malta's towns and villages.

This happened just a few weeks after the shock from the extension of development zones through the rationalisation exercise.

These two measures unleashed a civil-society movement which led the Gonzi government to recant on the eve of the 2008 election and embark subsequently on a MEPA reform. This ended by alienating the same developers it once appeased without meeting environmentalists' high expectations.

The Labour government now promises a process for the formulation of new local plans by the beginning of 2015.

A three-month consultation period will start the process, which will include town-hall meetings in the last week of July. This will result in a draft consultation document and public discussion. On paper this suggests a fuller consultation process than in 2006.

But despite a general consensus on the need to revise the defective 2006 plans, environmentalists worry that the process coincides with the government's flirtation with the developers' lobby.

Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar Coordinator Astrid Vella, who was prominent in the movement against the 2006 local plans, notes that recent developments indicate the government is bent on answering developers' every complaint towards MEPA, even if it means betraying MEPA's guardianship responsibilities.

Vella regrets that the authorities have forgotten "it was Maltese citizens that elected this government with a massive historical majority of votes, not developers."

She also reminds Labour that pre-election surveys showed residents' overwhelming environmental concern for over-development, which they want stopped.

Back to 2006?

In 2006, environmentalists were equally apprehensive of the government's cozy relationship with developers.

One of residents' chief complaints in 2006 was that the final version differed drastically from the draft which had been issued for public consultation four years before. Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino himself concluded that in 2006, MEPA applied a very restrictive interpretation of the Development Planning Act by limiting public consultation to the very initial stages.

In other cases, the public was ignorant of the changes made to both the draft and final versions, and this was compounded by the four-year lag between the consultation and the issuance of the actual local plans.

One notable case would have allowed the development of a four-storey block - dwarfing the Lija tower - in breach of the structure plan but envisioned in the local plan. A permit for the controversial development was only revoked after the 2008 general elections and a campaign led by Lija Mayor Ian Castaldi Paris.

For AD Deputy Chairman Carmel Cacopardo revising the plans is an opportunity "to remedy the damage done in the past years."

Astrid Vella concurs, noting that the 2006 plans, combined with the rationalisation plans and the raising of height limitations, ruined village cores and consumed more of the countryside - only to enrich one sector at the cost of public health.

"Nothing short of a courageous revision of those plans will set us on the path of sustainable urban planning and a decent quality of life, however the indications are far from hopeful."

Former PN minister Michael Falzon, under whom the Planning Authority was established and who now represents the Malta Developers Association, insists that there are too many mistakes in the 2006 plans and they need urgent correction.

"Many mistakes are the result of lack of attention to what there is on site, leading one to suspect that the plans were decided upon from a MEPA office in Floriana without the necessary site inspections."

One notorious issue, according to Falzon, was the height limitations on part of Transfiguration Avenue, Lija.

"This led to MEPA refusing permits that were in line with the local plans, an unacceptable situation, as this meant that nobody could be certain of what development is allowed in any site and what is not."

Moreover, the inordinately long period after the draft and the publication for consultation meant that events subsumed the approval. A revision is therefore definitely, urgently necessary, if for only this reason.

Mayor Castaldi Paris says the task is challenging. "However if done appropriately, a lot of good can come of it."

He says that if the revision was done with greater attention to both detail and fairness "there would be no need to keep hounding for and objecting to ridiculous MEPA applications" like that proposed in Lija next to the Belvedere.

He recalls that in this case the council was "proved correct, and the so-called professional who was involved in the local plan was proved wrong."

He would still like to see someone shoulder responsibility for "the vulgar and inappropriate planning" which characterised the 2006 local plan approval.

Midsummer consultation

This time, the process will commence with three months of public participation, culminating in six public meetings in the last week of July.

Astrid Vella told MaltaToday, "While it is laudable that widespread public consultation is planned, FAA questions the commitment to consultation, since it's being launched in the summer months, when MEPA knows the rate of public participation plummets."

Castaldi Paris also noted, "A midsummer consultation is surely not the right time to do something like this, as many might be on vacation, and in the summer heat one will not be too delighted to attend consultation meetings."

He acknowledges that in winter, some would probably still criticise the timing, since cold weather keeps people from going out.

What is sure is the need for a lot of publicity, as this is a serious process which will affect the value of an immovable property, he says.

During the three-month consultation, MEPA will invite involvement from local councils, the public and all interested stakeholders.

But Astrid Vella is concerned that many relevant meetings are happening behind closed doors.

"Consultation meetings on various policies which will have a bearing on the local plans are ongoing behind the scenes, with boards predominantly staffed by representatives of the construction industry."

Clearly referring to the appointment of Robert Musumeci as the government's planning adviser, Vella expresses concern that "a leading pro-development architect is the advisor to government on the changes being brought about in MEPA in favour of development."

After the draft local plans are published next year, MEPA will issue them policies for further public consultation. Accordingly, they will undergo two rounds of public consultation.

But what will happen between the end of the consultation process and the arrival of the final version raises the most doubts, because the public may well see things in the final which never figured in the draft.

While describing the schedule earmarked for public consultation as "adequate," former planning minister Falzon notes that in 2006, there "were too many blatantly extensive and unjustified" differences between the draft plans published for consultation and the approved local plans that were approved many years afterwards. "One hopes that this sort of trick is not resorted to again this time around."

For Castaldi Paris, it is vital that the government states the goal of the revision "so that one's frame of mind will be focused on what could and what could not be revised."

He insists that it is imperative to set a line, "as we cannot afford to have once again bad planning and lack of common sense."

He mentions cases of adjacent fields, one in a building zone and the other outside it.

"It was a farce which left many people hurt, especially in those instances where people were simply told that a line had to be drawn somewhere."

AD proposes moratorium

For Green Party Deputy Chairman Cacopardo, the revision is a golden opportunity to reverse the damage done in 2006.

He also suggests that it should include a reversal of the rationalisation exercise of 2008.

"In addition a moratorium on large scale development is necessary until such time that the market deals with the current glut of vacant properties."

According to Cacopardo, the revision must take into account "the fact that the Maltese islands have over 70,000 vacant residential properties."

The FAA's Astrid Vella also raises this point.

"It is worrying to hear Malta's top authorities still speaking about the need to reclaim land or build higher when neither is needed, since Malta has 77,000 empty residential units."

Vella warns that if this is the spirit that will guide the review, then there is cause for serious concern.

She referred to Parliamentary Secretary Michael Farrugia's declaration to MaltaToday that he would not exclude tampering with development zones in the revised plans.

"Similarly, the fact that the authorities are already relaxing their pledge that there will be no change to the development boundaries is alarming."

For his part Cacopardo expects the new plans to address the problem of increased heights facilitated in 2006. "This should be reversed in such a way that more adequate consideration is given to solar rights of residents."

He notes that the increase in permissible heights has placed various residences in the shade and put to waste investments made by various families in solar water heaters and photovoltaic panels. 

Within this context, it is also time to rethink policies concerning the construction of penthouses.

"In many cases these penthouses are taking up the roof area, which should and could be utilised by residents to reduce their carbon footprint through the generation of solar energy."

In respect of projects which involve demolition, local plan policies should encourage the reuse of the stone from the demolished buildings, rather than having the resource considered as construction waste.

More emphasis should also be placed on the cumulative impacts of development, in particular the impact of traffic on the air quality in our localities.

Need for more flexibility

But while Cacopardo favours measures aimed at "curtailing" and restructuring the building industry, Falzon insists on greater flexibility. "The revision should also produce more flexible policies as regards land use in areas where development is permitted and the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, such as in the case of so-called 'rationalisation areas' and 'containment areas.'

Castaldi Paris insists that the plan should be more specific and tailor-made for different localities.

"In changing a local plan one should keep in mind where the locality is - whether it is a commercial area or not, whether it is an area which deserves planning restrictions, as is the case with the Sliema front, or not."

Changes must also take into account the density of the area and "the aesthetic impact" of development on surrounding areas.