Bedingfield and the PA
What we have been suspecting for so long has now been confirmed.
A few days ago, the Planning Authority indicated that it would refuse an application for the extension of the American University of Malta complex on Dock 1 in Cospicua, overturning the recommendation of the case officer responsible for the application.
A final decision is still to be taken.
Among those who reacted to this initial ruling was Labour MP Glenn Bedingfield, who is also the head of the Cottonera Rehabilitation Committee.
In the weeks preceding the hearing, he had been vocal against the project, going as far as belittling the AUM’s plans by saying that the existing structures were enough for the fledgling university’s “dozen students”. One must remember that when the AUM project was announced, one of the major points of criticism was whether the university would have managed to attract the 4,000 students it planned for. To have a government MP speaking of a “dozen students” was an endorsement of what the critics had been saying all along. Bedingfield was expressing serious doubts whether the target will be reached.
But it was what Bedingfield said after the Planning Authority’s ruling that offers more food for thought.
After the PA’s indication that it would refuse the application for the extension, Bedingfield welcomed the move, noting that the way the situation was handled showed that “we are a sensitive government that listens”.
Notice the words chosen – “we are a sensitive government that listens”.
But wasn’t it the Planning Authority which decided? Where did the government come into the equation? Since when is a Planning Authority decision one that means that the government has listened?
Ever since the Planning Authority was created, it has often come under fire by environmentalists, the media and others that it was influenced in its decisions by what the government of the day wanted. Projects which the government supported effortlessly sailed through the permit process; others which the government did not like were stalled. It was easy to notice that, in many instances, the PA was a rubber-stamp of what the government of the day wanted.
What Bedingfield said removes the demarcation line that is supposed to exist between the government and what is supposed to be an independent entity, set up to supposedly be objective in its decisions after having supposedly listened to all views.
It seems that in his haste to take some form of credit for the PA’s decision – Bedingfield is a candidate in the Cottonera district, and needs the votes of the residents to be reelected – there was a slip of the tongue which exposed the influence that the government has on the Planning Authority.
Like all of us, Bedingfield has every right to an opinion, and it is positive that he had the courage to go against his own government, endorsing a position that had been taken by others, including environmentalists and the media. But it is clear that, for the Planning Authority, some opinions are more important than others.
This particular situation shows that unless objections to a project are coming from the government or any of its representatives, the Planning Authority will not listen.