Considering the pr development in a w

A brazen abuse of the planning system (2)

In this second part of my contribution, I discuss matters which I believe the Planning Authority should also consider when arriving to a decision.

Impacts on tourism

In Paceville and St Julian’s, there is the highest concentration of hotels on the island. In spite of being an important tourism resort, it is greatly impacted by high levels of construction activity. A friend of mine who was staying at a hotel in Paceville posted on social media a photo of a building under construction as seen from her hotel room window. She sarcastically wrote that her travel allowance had not paid for the sea view! Some level of construction activity is to be expected in any place more so for refurbishments and improvements of hotels. It seems to me ill-advised however to commit a tourism resort area to many years of considerable and construction inconveniences, which are an eyesore, to produce luxury apartments for long-term investment of wealthy foreigners. Another negative impact on tourism is the greater difficulty for tourists to move around be- cause of the increased traffic congestion in the road network around Paceville and Pembroke. Because of the ITS site development, the loss of time and the inconveniences of travel are set to increase for tourists staying in the area. I was for a time consultant to the MTA on tourism product development. The creation of St George’s Bay sandy beach, the new Pembroke Gardens and the Pembroke Garigue Park were three projects in which I am proud to have been involved. The thrust was to make the area more pleasant and to provide new facilities for tourists and for residents. In this, the Malta Tourism Authority was successful even if there is still more that needs to be done. The proposed ITS site development is now a major step backwards. The building is significantly disproportionate to its surroundings. It will be an eyesore and will make the area less attractive. For example, Pembroke Gardens will be cast in the shade for most of the day from October to March, making it less enjoyable to use. The impact that the proposed development will have on St George’s Bay is also a concern. This is the only sandy beach in the vicinity of Swieqi, Pembroke, Paceville, and St Julian’s. In the summer, it is used by thousands of tourists and Maltese who live a short walking distance away. The beach is already compromised by the excessive developments that have taken place around it. The ITS site development will make it many times worse, largely because the building will be excessively out of scale with everything that surrounds it.

Allocation of public land and the planning process

In its decision, the Planning Authority should also take into account that this is public land. Public authorities should use public land to further social and environmental objectives, as well as sustaining economic objectives. Public land should be considered for uses that would benefit the various publics (the nearby residents, tourists staying in the area, the tourism and leisure activity in Paceville, etc.). Considering the various needs of the area, the government seriously lacked vision when it gave the ITS site away for speculative apartments and commercial development. And, to boot, an educational institution, the ITS, was forced to relocate, with all the disruption that this brings with it. One fails to understand why the authorities allocated all the site and not just part of it. In particular, why was the public car park on the opposite side of Triq Walter Ganado also included? Is it possible that no one in government thought of the possibility of retaining this part of the site for some future social or educational need? It is a ‘bad development’, not only because the developer seeks to speculatively maximize the site beyond what would be reasonably permitted, but also because the authorities facilitate the excessively intensive development by allocating all the site down to its last square inch. For a site of this size and strategic location, the preparation of a development brief is essential. A development brief sets the parameters for the development, taking into account the economic, social and environmental needs of the area and of the country. A brief is based on proper research and consultations with stakeholders and with the public. It is only through a proper planning process that appropriate objectives for the site and the area can be derived. For a site that is publicly owned, the need for a development brief is even greater. The brief should be prepared before the site is issued in a competitive bidding process. Moreover, the brief should be part of the bidding documentation so that the eventual successful bidder would be bound to adhere to the requirements of the brief. That is the way things should be done when dealing with sizeable public properties. The lack of a brief or any form of planning guidance has resulted in a development application that ignores the planning context and environmental and social impacts. If the planning process is defective, the end result will almost inevitably be a ‘bad development’. No amount of tinkering with a proposed ‘bad development’ will make it good. In development control, it is essential that board members feel free to decide on an application taking into consideration relevant policies and information. For a credible planning system, board members should not feel that they are unduly pressurised. The impartiality of board members has already been compromised with the changes made in the planning law in 2016; changes that were evidently intended to increase the direct control of the politician over decisions taken by the Planning Authority. For this application, the board members will feel doubly pressurized because the government has committed itself to the development, first by signing the lease agreement and second by spending time and effort to force an education institution, the Institute for Tourism Studies, out of the site. This is not planning. This is the imposition of the politician’s will on the Planning Authority to favour a speculative development.

What are the risks?

A recent article in The Guardian (13 March) reported how buyerfunded developments in Liver-