Heritage Advisory Committee to be abolished

Despite the Mistra outcry, outline permits abolished in 2010 are set to return and will condition future decisions

Despite the public outcry over the development of 774 apartments in Mistra outline permits were abolished in 2010 and are now on their way back
Despite the public outcry over the development of 774 apartments in Mistra outline permits were abolished in 2010 and are now on their way back

Both panels of the Heritage Advisory Committee – one responsible for the cultural heritage, the other for the natural heritage – are being removed by the proposed law due to be discussed after the summer recess. 

The function of each panel is to provide professional and expert advice to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority on matters relating to the conservation of the cultural and natural heritage in an integrated process. 

According to the existing law each panel provides advice on the application process, in particular with regard to the conservation of property or areas that may be affected by an application for a development permission.

With the removal of the HAC, there will be no independent input in the process. 

According to the present law the chairman and three other members of the cultural heritage panel are appointed by the minister responsible for culture, and the chairman and three members of the natural heritage panel are appointed by the minister after consulting the authority. 

Despite being composed of appointees, the panels have distinguished themselves in the past by highlighting shortcomings in the planning process and even disagreeing with MEPA decisions, as was the case in the approval of a cemetery in Nadur.  

Moreover case officers have to address issues raised by the HAC when presenting their report on whether an application should be approved or not.

The HAC has been instrumental in highlighting inconsistencies in the Environment Impact Assessment for the development of Hondoq ir-Rummien and has regularly scrutinised minor developments in historic village cores.  

Scrutiny by the HAC has been crucial in view of the under-staffing at the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

The minutes of both panels are also published on the MEPA website, something which ensures greater public scrutiny during the application process.

The HAC members have the authority to inspect sites where development is proposed.

The cultural heritage panel is chaired by Magistrate Dennis Montebello while the natural heritage panel is chaired by Mr Justice Joseph David Camilleri.

 

The return of the outline permit 

After blaming the issue of the Mistra 12-storey high rise on a preliminary permit issued under the Gonzi administration, the government has re-introduced outline permits. This means that future boards assessing a full development permit will once again be conditioned by decisions taken by previous boards.

Outline permits were abolished in the 2010 MEPA reform to ensure that a development is approved through a single application which considers both the details and the general aspects of a development. Before 2010 developers could first get the general principles of the development approved at outline stage and then proceed for a full planning application when detailed plans are presented. Instead of outline permits MEPA introduced a screening process through which developers are informed whether a project is in conflict with planning policies.

In 2013 the government claimed that a MEPA refusal to issue permits for 774 apartments on the former Mistra Village site would have resulted in the government paying the applicant damages equivalent to “a year’s worth of health workers’ salaries”.  The government even claimed that if the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had refused to issue the full permits for the project, the applicants, Gemxija Crown and the Montebello Bros construction firm, would have filed for damages.

The Church’s Kummissjoni Ambjent observed that in the past, outline permits have been granted which then compromised the full development permission. The problem, according to the church commission, is that the outline permit in itself cannot go into details even if in many cases the number of apartments or floors for the development is decided at outline permit stage. 

“When details are then worked out and a full application is presented, the succeeding planning commissions express dismay that their hands are bound because of a previous decision relating to an outline permit”. 

In its submissions to MEPA, the Front Harzien ODZ has also objected to the reintroduction of outline permits.

“Experience (ex Mistra) has shown that commitments taken at this stage are difficult to revoke at a later stage. It does not make sense to first approve something in principle without providing the full details,” the Front argued. 

More favourable to the re-introduction of outline permits was the small business chamber, the GRTU, which viewed this as a positive move and proposed that once an outline permit is issued, this should become binding. 

According to the GRTU the difference between the outline permit as proposed and a full development permit is just the fees paid to the Planning Authority. 

“Therefore once an outline permit is issued, a permit upon which entrepreneurs might base important and costly decisions, such as the acquisition of property, it should become irrevocable and the applicant should only be asked to pay the PA fees,” the GRTU said.