FAA comments on Development in the Planning Field
I would like to share two quotes with you and ask that you to guess what country’s planning authority has set these principles.
“THE URBAN AREA SHALL BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE, WORK, PLAY AND INTERACT. IT SHALL BE CLEAN, POLLUTION FREE, SAFE, GREEN, DISTINCT, EVOKE A SENSE OF OPENESS, ENERGY EFFICIENT AND GENERATE ENERGY FROM MICRO-RENEWABLE INFRACTURE. ITS HISTORIC CORES SHALL BECOME VIBRANT AND THEIR TOWNSCAPES HARMONIOUS. THE URBAN AREA SHALL HAVE A NETWORK OF ECONIMICALLY DYNAMIC URBAN HUBS AND WALKABLE NEIGHBIOURHOODS WITH CLUSTERS OF LOCAL FACILITIES.”
“In housing projects consisting of 40 or more dwellings, access to play and amenity space will be sought. Where there is no existing reasonable provision in the vicinity of the site and safe access to it from the site, the developer will be requested to provide on-site communal open play and amenity spaces at a ratio of 10 square metres per dwelling. Continuing protection and maintenance of such space will be secured by development control conditions.”
The first is from the SPED VISION 1.27 the second from MEPA’s DC POLICY AND DESIGN 2007.
One of the remits of Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar is that of educating and promoting a better quality of life by promoting awareness of good urban design in terms of the health benefits it contributes to residents, as well as how this improves their quality of life.
We define an environment that enhances quality of life as one allows people to be mobile, to socialise and play, all within easy walking distance of their homes. We also look at this from the physical and mental health benefits that residents derive from such an environment, and the resultant savings in taxpayers’ hard-earned euros spent in preventing diseases that a badly designed urban environment contributes to.
The vitality of an urban environment can be judged by its ability to empower people to walk and use open spaces for relaxation and recreation. It is a space that accommodates a number of different uses and imparts a sense of belonging to those who frequent it.
The challenge in designing an urban space is not in legislating policies with a one-size-fits-all mentality; the challenge in creating living, walkable, tree-canopied green habitats is in understanding the dynamics of the spaces in each different town and village.
Each village has its own character, its own tempo of activity and sense of place, therefore designs need to reflect that, an appreciation that is lacking in Malta’s track record of village remodelling or ‘embellishment’. Since the 1960s many of our public projects have lacked sensitivity to the character of each village, as well as respect for traditional organic village growth patterns, streetscape and architectural idiom.
One cannot successfully argue that our urban environment is designed with people in mind, as one cannot help but notice that all recent urban planning focusses on accommodating development and cars, as evidenced by narrow, uneven, dangerous pavements. Urban streets have not been made safe for pedestrians and cyclists, while people with mobility challenges are faced with constant obstacles and discriminated against.
Many of us here share the sentiment that the pleasure of travelling abroad is significantly diminished by the realisation that Malta lags some 50 years behind other countries in terms of urban design.
FAA has a development committee with the remit of reviewing most planning applications. While many of the designs presented are intelligent and respectful of residents’ requirements, we do find others that are objectionable. These include designs that do not conform to regulations or that do not respect the building’s context, such as a three storey building plus penthouse being applied for in a predominantly two-storey street.
We find it shocking that we have not come across any planning applications that present Energy Performance Certificates as required by law and that MEPA, the legislated entity required to ensure their presentation at application stage, ignores this obligation.
Applications for the sanctioning of illegalities almost always granted and Outline Permits that violate policies are still granted permits.
Many cases involve the destruction of architectural gems to be replaced by apartments. Old gardens like the Villa Mekrech garden are proposed to be destroyed and replaced by blocks of apartments. Urban core gardens, the last remaining green lungs in many towns and villages, are being allowed to disappear in favour of yet more long narrow apartment blocks in spite of the fact that this practice is supposedly vetoed by MEPA Urban Conservation Area policies.
The destruction of Malta’s architectural heritage will pick up momentum and continue unchecked once MEPA’s proposals to dismantle protective regulations are passed. While other countries protect heritage as their national pride and also as a source of tourist revenue, we are so backward that we are to creating+ laws to destroy our heritage in Taliban fashion, undermining tourism, the real pillar of our economy.
Recently FAA has been campaigning to reverse a development permit issued within the legislated buffer zone of the Ta’ Hagrat Temples. Previous applications in this area have always been refused by case officers, Heritage Malta and the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage on the grounds of infringement of the Temples’ Grade 1 schedule buffer zone, yet inexplicably in the case of this application, this constraint applied to several applications has inexplicably been ignored.
Similarly, in the Mistra Towers and Zbibu Lane cases, Transport Malta’s consultee input in favour of environmental protection was reversed without any justification other than to accommodate developers.
It is in this light that FAA regards the demerger as nothing more than a universal licence for further planning mismanagement, leading to further damage to our communities and heritage.
Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar has always maintained that the crux of the environment issue is not whether it is under one roof with MEPA but whether the Environment Directorate is to be given real power to protect the environment and sustainability. Until now, the Planning Directorate has always commanded far more staff, budget and clout than the resource-starved Environment Directorate, MEPA’s Cinderella. Environment Minister Leo Brincat’s admission that he was not consulted on the revised ODZ Policy indicates that nothing has changed. His assurance that “we would be strongly objecting to situations that could arise where the parameters are bypassed” begs the question – what tools would Environment have to deliver these strong objections?
It is now regrettably clear that Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change will be subservient to this “simplified” Authority, in fact it appears that it will not have a representation on MEPA Executive Council which is to determine policy. A Development Planning Commission is to be set up to determine planning applications but no mention is made of its composition.
We look at this ‘Efficient Planning System’ as an exercise in subterfuge, which, while ostensibly focussing on efficiency and improved access to the appeals tribunal, is in reality sweeping away necessary regulations which are being dismissed as bureaucracy. Efficiency is being used as an excuse to dismantle all the checks and balances that have been built into the planning system over the last few years and public consultation appears to be actively curtailed.
The sanctioning of illegalities appears to become an entrenched policy. We would strongly recommend that we join the rest of the civilized world in penalising abusers and not rewarding them for breaking the law.
The end result of this document will be to further ruin our streetscapes and destroy our protected green areas, so vital to our quality of life. The document systematically sets out to strip protection from our built heritage, encouraging the neglect and eventual destruction of our architectural heritage, through de-scheduling of protected properties and impediments to protect the bulk of heritage properties that are still unscheduled.
Allowing the sanctioning of abuse in ODZ is consistent with the process of degradation of our countryside, as evidenced in the fact that the ODZ document barely refers to biodiversity or Malta’s international obligations, including EU Directives which are not being upheld. Significantly, the Ministry for the Environment and Sustainable Development was not consulted on this policy document.
Given that it has been publicly admitted even by the highest MEPA officials, that MEPA has failed miserably at enforcing planning regulations, how can one be convinced that MEPA will cope with monitoring building and sanitary regulations, while at the same time speeding up the approval of permits? This document weakens farther the imposition of enforcement with the introduction of warning notices before stop and enforcement notices are issued putting in doubt the Fast Tracking proposal.
In spite of all the talk of consultation, this “Authority” setting itself as a monarchical department with absolute powers to overrule any recommendation on the part of all internal and external consultees —– including the Sanitary Board and more importantly the Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change. These can put in their objections or recommendations on planning applications but the Authority has the right to ignore these, without justification. The Ministry or sanitary can then go to the appeals tribunal to force their point.
As regards the SPED (Structrure Plan for Environment and Planning ), FAA maintains that the draft entrusted to qualified MEPA should have been completed and presented for public consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary’s claim that the SPED had to be completely re-worked in order to bring it in line with the new government’s policies is an admission that it is political priorities that are to be fulfilled, not environmental, social and economic ones. In fact, the SPED document shows that it has been hastily-cobbled together while the absence of studies underpinning it show a lack of commitment to the planning and management of Malta’s environment.
The media has been full of the powers that this demerger gives to the planning authority to the benefit of the developers, so I will conclude with our proposals:
The prime entity should be the Ministry for the Environment, which should have a deciding say as legislator in development applications that affect the environment.
FAA proposes that given the freedoms proposed to be given to developers, and keeping in mind adage that, with great freedom comes great responsibility, the law should legislate higher penalties for those who abuse the system of self-regulation. Broken trust should be punished not rewarded.
There should be no regularizing of abusive developments as this only encourages more abuse. Where building is concerned, irregularities and illegal developments happen in full consciousness that shortcuts are being taken and that illegalities are carried out willfully, perpetuated by contractors, and lack of attention by project managers and architects. Illegal buildings should not be sanctioned but demolished or corrected at the developers’ expense.
Renewal of applications should be treated as new applications, or at the least be reviewed to reflect the current policies, not those in force when the application was first presented.
FAA furthermore proposes that:
Bank guarantees should be substantially higher;
Development permits have a start date and a non-extendable end of project date – development should not be allowed to drag on for years to the detriment of neighbours;
Fines should be raised considerably from the present minimum of 4 euros; penalties should reflect the crime making the breaking of the law financially exorbitant. Putting in place policies that reward a premeditated crime is beyond all logic and morality.
It is not enough for a Government to claim to listen. For a Socialist government to run blindly after short-term commercial gain at the cost of the well-being of the community is particularly reprehensible. Environmental, social and long-term economic priorities need to be incorporated in a professional manner into policies that benefit the whole nation, not just one narrow interest-group in order to attract international investment and hand our children a country worth living in.
Thank you.