An estate agent should never be on the planning board – Head of MDA’s Estate Agent section
An estate agent should never be on the planning board, President of the Estate Agents Section of the Malta Developers Association Douglas Salt (right) told The Malta Independent.
Recently, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti ruled that planning board member Matthew Pace had a conflict of interest because of his involvement in real estate when he voted on the db Group’s ITS project. The court was deciding on an appeal filed by local councils and several environment groups against a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal that had ruled in favour of the permit.
Matthew Pace, is a franchise owner of REMAX Alliance Swieqi, which shared a database and website with REMAX Malta. The agency had been selling apartments that were part of the db project at a time when no planning permit had yet been granted. Pace resigned from the PA board last week. He was appointed to the Board back in 2013, and was listed as being a Financial Consultant at the time.
Contacted and asked if he believes this judgement could set a precedent, in the sense that other cases Pace was involved in could result in similar court cases being filed, Douglas Salt said: “Ï suppose. If you look at it that way it could be the case. An estate agent should never be on the planning board in the first place, or anyone who has any direct... it’s like saying you would put a developer on the planning board.”
‘So it just shouldn’t happen, he shouldn’t have been there in the first place?’ he was asked.
“Whoever appoints the board should have a vision of clear boundaries,” Salt said.
“An estate agent ideally would not even want to be on a board, as then you are constantly taking decisions on possible clients of yours,” Salt concluded .
Asked if he is concerned that more court cases will be opened, he said that he wouldn’t say that it is concerning him as he hasn’t heard of anyone who is going to contest their permit because of this particular board.
“This is a lesson to be learnt for the future, that when appointing boards there should be clear boundaries.”
In the court judgement regarding the db Group’s ITS site, the court revoke the tribunal’s decision and considers the planning board’s decision of 20 September 2018, in these circumstances, “to be null and void” Mr Justice Chetcuti ruled. This means that the PA decision to grant the DB Group a planning permit no longer holds and the PA will have to reconsider the case. The court said that Matthew Pace had a specific impediment, aimed at a particular project in which he had a monetary interest, “which if not actual was certainly potential and this in a realistic, not hypothetical way”.
Pace could not decide on a project in which he had such a potential interest in its approval. This led to a lack of “subjective impartiality” on Pace’s part, said the court. The court said it was surprised at the way the tribunal had tackled the issue. “The project is an enormous one with enormous financial repercussions... [and] is treated so lightly by those who have the duty to avoid creating an obstacle to a just decision and perceptions of bias,” Chetcuti had ruled.
Since that court decision was made, the db Group filed a judicial protest demanding damages from the Planning Authority, arguing that a recent court decision against the enormous project on the former Institute of Tourism Studies site, had failed to safeguard its right to a fair hearing. In addition, the db group said it was reactivating its application for the development of the City Centre on the former ITS site in Pembroke.
Founder and Chairperson of Futur Ambjent Wiehed lawyer Claire Bonello (left) was also asked for her opinion on the court create a precedent. She said yes.
“The principle is that a member of a deciding authority should not be involved, in anyway, in decisions which he or she might have an interest in, in terms of gaining or losing from such decision. With regard to other situations where the same agency which that member was tied to in some capacity, if the agency was advertising those properties prior to the decision then the same principle applies. But it would have to be proven that the particular agency was advertising those projects which that member decided upon.”
Bonello explained that if any member of the board has an interest in anything being decided or discussed by the board, he has to declare it to the Chairman. “It is a declaration of interest, and it was not done in that case.”
Bonello said that in cases where a board member has an interest in a particular case, then that member needs to declare it. In fact, the Development Planning Act reads: “Where any member of the Authority, or a member of the staff of the Authority, or a consultant, advisor or other person engaged by the Authority, has any interest in any matter which falls to be considered by the Authority, he shall upon becoming aware of such interest: Disclose to the Executive Council or the Planning Board, as the case may be, the nature of his interest; Neither influence nor seek to influence the processing and the decision in relation to such matter; Take no part in any consideration of such matter; and not attend nor participate in any meeting on such matter.”
“Bonello explained that if any member of the board has an interest in anything being decided or discussed by the board, he has to declare it to the Chairman. “It is a declaration of interest, and it was not done in that case.”