A number of Environmental NGOs have slammed the Planning Authority over its recent decision to restrict access to planning documents before a certain stage in the process is reached, arguing that this goes against transparency, gives developers an advantage, and creates an unfair playing field. The PA argues that it does not limit public access.

A number of applications which where previously visible, such as the American University of Malta’s Zonqor Point application, as well as others, now only read “No complete application found.”  This seemingly meant that the Authority has implemented a new policy regarding the stage by which the public have access to an application. This thus far only seems to be the situation only in cases where the application is still in the very early stages,

This newsroom called up Planning Authority Executive Chairperson Johann Buttigieg looking for answers as to this new policy.

Buttigieg said that publishing an application which would have been received, but which is not complete as an application, would “give misinformation to the public as not all the information would be there. Legally, we are obliged to publish the application when it is complete.”

He said that this is essentially when the application is paid for and all information is there. Expanding on this, he said that when an application is first filed, it goes to the vetting stage where the Authority would check whether all the requirements are observed. “Architects could take a number of weeks to update that information, possibly due to the need for other clearances etc. There are a number of applications which do not pass through to the end of this process. So sometimes it creates hype on applications which would not even have passed validation stage.”

In a separate news article, a PA spokesperson had told MaltaToday  that documents will be made available to the public when the  application form is fully filled, all documentation required has been fully submitted and payment for the said application is fully effected, and that only once this is done is the PA legally bound to publish the application.

Asked why the PA is introducing this change now, Buttigieg said the change occurred two weeks ago. He said there was the need for this as a number of complaints were received.

Told that this could be seen as limiting public access, he said that this is not the case, explaining that the law prescribes exactly when and how an application should be published. Told that this could result in people realising too late about an application, he said: “with all due respect. Applicants have their right to submit an application. It is only fair that an application is made public when all the information is given complete. It is unfair for an application to be made public half-baked, from an applicant’s point of view.”

This newsroom asked a number of environmentalists for their reaction to this situation.

This newsroom contacted Andre Callus from Moviment Graffitti. “He said that there is absolutely no reason to keep this information hidden, other than to keep certain things hidden and not allow the public participate straight away. There is no other reason.”

“By saying ‘application incomplete’, it does not mean that the process did not start. It would have already started with the PA and other entities, meaning that the project would be moving forward, but would be behind the peoples’ backs. Saying ‘application incomplete is a farce and doesn’t make sense. It is an arbitrary line between complete as incomplete as the project would have already begun, and even after the representation period, fresh plans are submitted. So an application is never complete 100% until it is completely approved or denied by the board.”

“The major problem of the PA is that it does not understand the importance of people participating. For them, giving the public the month-long or so representation period, where objections are received, that is participation for them. They already don’t pay attention to them like in the db Group application on the ITS site where 4,000 objections were filed.”

“The point is that full participation, as is peoples right, should begin from the initial stages. Full participation means that residents can meet together, that NGOs can look for information... these things take time. Keeping people from having access from the beginning will keep people from informing themselves and participating in a meaningful way.”

He said that this is also a loophole for developers, where those developers who do not want the people to know about it straight away, would leave it incomplete, prolonging the time till people will know about it. “This is unbalanced and works against the public.”

Architect Tara Cassar from Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar said that the Planning Authority “cannot claim to be transparent and then proceed to hide critical information about some of the most controversial proposals which it is currently processing. The Planning Authority is knowingly withholding this information from the general public for no justifiable reason. It is certainly not illegal for such information to be available to the public. It is necessary for it to be easily accessible throughout the stages of evaluation of any application.”

She said that this is vital to ensure public participation throughout the whole procedure and is mandatory under the Aarhus Convention. “This is most especially the case for large-scale developments which will impact residents' lives directly. It is useless for the public to  be allowed to comment or take action after all the major decisions have effectively been taken. “

Lawyer Claire Bonello, on behalf of Futur Ambjent Wiehed (a relatively new engo) argued that the withholding of information related to planning applications is yet another indication that the PA has no intention of being transparent or allowing outside scrutiny of documentation. “By choosing to withhold information and releasing it in a drip-drip fashion, the PA is, again, putting the public at a disadvantage and making it a totally unfair playing field in favour of their preferred applicants. The excuse that the application is ‘incomplete’ doesn’t wash. These same applications have already been published for consultation - so why hide them away now? To make it possible to change and alter behind the scenes?”