Prioritizing permits over the public – Tara Cassar

When the news of local COVID19 cases broke and all were being advised to practise social distancing, members of the public were understandably shocked by the Planning Authority’s insistence on proceeding with public hearings.

These public hearings include: decisions on major projects taken by the Planning Board; decisions on small to medium sized projects taken by the Planning Commission; decisions on other more overarching matters taken by the Planning Authority’s Executive Council; as well as all sittings concerning appeals decided by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. All these hearings are legally bound to be held in public.

The public in attendance at these sittings is usually composed of applicants, architects, lawyers, objectors and members of the media. The number of people in the room at any given moment could vary from five to 50 people, or even more.

When the virus made its way to Malta, the Planning Authority said it would continue holding these meetings, but only allow the applicant and architect, whose case is being heard, inside the boardroom at any given moment. The Planning Commission hears up to fifty cases a day. Limiting access for each case would not prevent the board members from having to engage with dozens of individuals on a daily basis and would still not safeguard these individuals from each other. Would the boardroom be sterilized between each case? And what about the crowd of people waiting outside the boardroom before their case is heard? Either way, this ‘ solution’ would still be in breach of the Development Planning Act since all hearings are meant to be held in public. The public would not be informed about what is being discussed, if these meetings are effectively being held privately.

Following criticism from several stakeholders including NGO representatives, the Planning Authority decided to cancel all meetings. However, after a few days of announcing that all public meetings were cancelled, the PA issued a notice stating that the Planning Board hearing scheduled for 26 March was back on the agenda.

Again, stakeholders were outraged. How could a government authority persist on

Again, following public outcry, the hearing was cancelled (as were a number of Planning Commission sittings that also had their Lazarus moment in this brief stint).

holding a public hearing – during which several major projects were to be decided – at a time when we are all being told to stay home and avoid unnecessary social contact in order to prevent a national catastrophe. Is the approval of another multi-storey hotel or high-rise development really so urgent that it would warrant placing the public’s health at risk?

Again, following public outcry, the hearing was cancelled (as were a number of Planning Commission sittings that also had their Lazarus moment in this brief stint).

When (re)announcing the cancellation of all of last week’s sittings, the Planning Authority made it clear that it would be looking into other means, such as videoconferencing, to hold these meetings. And, without any delay, a legal notice was issued on Saturday announcing just this.

All sittings are once again happening. The public is expected to register their interest in following a case virtually. Any interested party would need to make their arguments by sending their comments electronically. It is not understood at which point these submissions can be made. It is not yet known which software the PA plans on using. The members of the public who are less tech-savvy have been given no other choice but to sit at home whilst cases that may have a direct impact on their lives are being decided without their input.

Whether concerning the sanctioning of a washroom, or the development of a multistorey hotel, the Planning Authority is bending over backwards to ensure that the processing of permits is not interrupted in this time of crisis. Even if that means severely compromising public participation in what are meant to be public hearings.

Meanwhile, the much-needed reform of the Building and Construction Regulations, that failed to prevent the tragic death of an innocent woman, has been put on hold due to the pandemic despite works still ongoing across several construction sites all over Malta and Gozo.

At a time when our focus should be on safeguarding the public’s health, for those blinded by the belief that construction will save us (or rather them) from anything, including a pandemic, building more at whatever cost still seems to be the only priority.