Building Industry Consultative Committee Chairman Robert Musumeci sincerely believes that the new development boundaries drawn up by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority on the Cabinet’s advice by far and large address the anomalies created by the 1988 Temporary Development Schemes. He spoke to
Gerald Fenech about these new boundaries, the construction industry’s ripple effects on the economy and new standards for excavations, among other issues.
I entered Robert Musumeci’s spacious office on a steaming hot day last week, but as an old school friend and genial person that this rising young architect is, he made me feel immediately at ease with his charming manner and willingness to talk about all things relating to building.
The first question was obviously about the new development zones and whether these are understandable and a logical continuation of the local plans process.
“Undoubtedly, these new boundaries are the future of the local plans. However the latter process did not go into detail to address the anomalies created by the 1988 Temporary Development Schemes and those who are saying that there aren’t things to be addressed are not being factual as these anomalies exist. Even (Labour leader) Dr Sant recognises this.”
Mr Musumeci insists that even the Opposition Leader has acknowledged that anomalies have to be addressed and he says Dr Sant admitted this in his weekly columns on the Sunday GWU newspaper. “It therefore seems that there is consensus across both political parties that this exercise should take place. The government would have been politically irresponsible to have left this issue by the wayside and I am satisfied that the government took the bull by the horns and decided to address the issue. After all, a new Labour government will resort to the same exercise, maybe with a different methodology which to me is still unknown”.
But was the method used to draw up these new boundaries correct?
“The Cabinet established a number of rigorous criteria and the media was correct to spotlight certain maps and how these boundaries were actually drawn up. In fact, I will be the first person to insist that if some land earmarked for development does not conform to the criteria, this should be struck off, or a sufficient explanation must be given in the light of the established Cabinet criteria. A common rationale should underpin each and every request”.
Pressed on this issue, Mr Musumeci admitted that in his opinion, some pockets which have been included in the new zones do not prima facie conform to the criteria but there must be some sort of explanation for this.
“There are some sites where only two out of four sides of these lands connect with existing development but one should contribute to the discussion process and not resort to simple mud slinging. To this end, it could be there is sufficient technical ground, underlined by the provisions of the Cabinet memo. The Labour Party has been inconsistent on this issue as while its leader has admitted that this development exercise is necessary, its media is making the case against such new zones”.
But why did the government take so long to address the Temporary Development Boundaries anomalies?
“The government should have addressed this issue before and admittedly it was perhaps relying on the local plans exercise, which was also perhaps too drawn out. But the Cabinet has executive power and finally decided that it was high time to intervene to address the situation through a political direction.”
Mr Musumeci insists that the anomalies should be addressed logically apart from a number of exceptions, which include multi-party ownership and permits that had previously been issued in a sporadic manner.
But doesn’t this situation create an injustice with regard to other lands that are outside the scheme but which are similar to those now being included?
“Mepa should obviously explain why certain lands were included and others were not as this will ensure that the process will remain as transparent as possible. I also insist that each submission, which was transmitted to Mepa during the consultation phase, should not only be acknowledged, but backed by counter comments from Mepa, which should be made available to the public.”
Has this process created a demand for applications for land to be included in the new zones?
“Personally, my office has submitted several applications and although some conform to the established criteria, there are others which do not, but which, in my opinion, follow the same rationale with which some lands have made it into the scheme. Again, I’m insisting that Mepa should give a correct explanation on every zone that was included in the new boundaries as perhaps there is some other rationale which I am not actually observing. An explanation should also be given in reaction to all submissions transmitted during the consultation phase. These should be made public, in order to ensure utmost transparency and that Parliament can decide in a more objective manner.”
Mr Musumeci has no qualms about the fact that the exercise was conducted in just a few days either. Does he believe that these new zones will shift the demand from demolition and rebuilding in urban centres?
“There is a misconception currently doing the round that village cores are being destroyed to make way for new developments. As a practising architect, I can tell you that this is definitely not the case and the Heritage Advisory Committee and the Development Control Commission headed by one of the most capable architects in this field, Norbert Gatt, apply strict and rigorous guidelines to such developments, despite the fact that demand for demolition within the Urban Conservation Areas remains high. Personally, I do not believe that these new zones will lessen construction activity in the schemed areas as the activity rate in construction is currently very high without any new land.”
However, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi went on record saying that the opening up of new land for building would have a relieving effect on the tremendous activity currently going on in urban centres. Are you in agreement or not with this, I asked?
“Probably the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that he envisages less demand to undertake demolition works in Urban Conservation Areas. I think that he is right. However activity in those areas which are schemed for development and not within the UCA, should not be compromised by rationalisation, given that the prevailing trend is to demolish terraced houses and build smaller unit apartments. Additionally, this may be a good thing as lots of ancillary work is created and this triggering effect is beneficial for the local economy, although I also insist that we should not compromise the environment.”
How do you explain the strange fact that the Chamber of Architects came out criticising the new development zones?
“Frankly, I was quite surprised at the chamber’s reaction as it is a member of the BICC and presumably was aware in the drafting of our reactions to the South Local Plan, which were formally communicated to Mepa before the rationalisation exercise. Our reactions to the draft South Local Plan contained maps which are more or less in synch with the criteria proposed by Cabinet. No one from my board has rejected the contents of that report before it was communicated to Mepa.”
Mr Musumeci also revealed that the BICC’s guidelines with regard to excavations are currently awaiting ministerial approval. These will bind developers to publish a method statement for any project that includes excavation and which will be made available for public consultation.
“We have presented a report to the government which states that each excavation should be supported with a method statement that can also be seen by neighbours. If the residents feel aggrieved, they can object and eventually seek redress on sound technical grounds. As things stand now, a developer can begin excavating without such a statement.”
The BICC chairman also revealed that the council was heavily involved in the drawing up of a regulatory framework, which would regulate construction management practice on site. This is also awaiting approval and eventual implementation by the government.