[WATCH] Musumeci skirts around questioning on whether planning reform is ‘exercise in malice’

Planning lawyer and architect Robert Musumeci skirted around questioning on whether government’s planning reform was an exercise in malice.

Musumeci, who authored the proposed legal amendments, was interviewed on TVM’s Xtra hosted by Saviour Balzan, and stood by the government’s bills.

The lawyer made it clear that his mandate, along with others who helped in writing the bills, was to align the the government’s brief with something objective, “such as legal principles and the courts’ doctrines.”

He avoided answering Balzan’s questioning when faced with former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s analysis of the proposed law, in which he described government’s handling of the controversial reforms as a mess (froġa).

Musumeci, in another part of the interview, also skirted around questioning by calling on Balzan to quote the exact parts of the law he was asking about. Visibly irritated at the line of questioning, he stood by the proposed reforms.

Quizzed on the proposal to give more discretion to board members he quoted a decision by the Appeals Court. The decision taken by the Court of Appeals took the position of the tribunal that the case was a contextual one, where they permitted the building of a villa in a site where the local plan only allowed bungalows.

He quoted the case as highlighting the importance of more discretion in interpretation of policies.

Another criticism Musumeci addressed was the proposal where the minister responsible will be given the power to revive revoked permits.

He argued this already exists within a legal context, referring to subsidiary legislation 552.33 which was recently called upon, which saw the revival of a revoked permit and the opposition did not present a motion to revoke this legal notice. He said as this already exists, it would be beneficial to have it confirmed in the law.

Musumeci also justified the decision to decrease the appeal period from 30 days to 20. He insisted the government sees this as a reasonable time-frame, especially when compared to other tribunals which have a similar 20-day period.

In the second part of the show, Balzan interviewed Din L-Art Ħelwa President Patrick Calleja and Malta Development Association President Michael Stivala. Both agreed the reforms needed wider public consultation.

Calleja started off by saying the reform addresses none of people’s major concerns, with the aim of Bill 143 being to reform the current law and Bill 144 aiming to dismantle the existing act of appeals and introduce a new one.

“The amendments in Bill 143 are disastrous for Malta,” Calleja explained, saying that it will remove all the procedure and classification of how a permit is processed, replacing it with only three considerations, spatial, architectural and contextual, “which are all very subjective.”

Calleja also pointed out with the proposed amendments, the responsible minister can extend the Villa Rosa permit, which expired in 2018. 

MDA boss Michael Stivala also voiced his concerns over the discretion given to minister, or any other single individual, due to personal interests, saying checks and balances are required in the planning process.

Stivala said that a similar exemption exists, and was used during the pandemic. He countered Calleja’s argument about the local plans, saying that when there is a PC application, this would be presented to the PA’s executive council, and later presented to the Environmental and Planning committee where it is voted upon then moved on to the minister.

Calleja replied to this by saying a new clause is being proposed where use of land and height is classified as minor modifications, hence it wouldn’t need to go through this process. This, he said, was a disastrous proposal which would continue to destroy the concept of sustainable planning.

He said the proposed law would weaken the Court of Appeal’s power as currently the court can revoke permits, but with the new law, the court would take a decision but the final decision to revoke an application or not would be in the tribunal’s hands.

Stivala elaborated on this point, saying it was not necessarily a bad thing, as the tribunal does not answer to the PA. He explained that as it stands, one can object to something because they are “interested”, whereas with the new law, one has to clearly state what they are objecting to.

He claimed that until two years ago, most of 1,300 objectors only presented a one sentence as their objection. He said they had proposed that the objectors and applicants meet before proceeding, as often it was a problem of misinterpretation.