I refer to comments made by Architect Vince Cassar in The Malta Independent on Sunday of 1 March following my article featured in the same paper on 15 February.

In any planning system, development applications are assessed with reference to a set of plans and policies. In my article on planning systems, I argued that “rigid” and “flexible” planning systems are extremes, and that any planning system falls somewhere in between. I discussed the pros and cons of either extreme.

In my opinion, the best possible system is one that allows a good level of flexibility in plans and policies. I agree with Vince Cassar when he states: “Rigidity in the interpretation and imposition of policies, particularly those of a design guidance nature, stifles creativity and innovation.” A flexible policy framework is more likely to produce good quality development that addresses social and economic needs. For a flexible planning system to achieve effective results however, a number of conditions have to be in place.

Regretfully, these conditions are not in place in Malta. There are an insufficient number of planners within Mepa with adequate training and experience to handle complex applications. Some private architects, albeit a minority, are unable to advise their clients on how to produce good quality development within the parameters of a flexible policy framework. The developer’s drive to maximise on each development is excessive. A degree of flexibility in the policy is perceived to be a loophole to be used to increase floor space.

I will give two examples. Between 2002 and 2004, I was member on the DCC board dealing with Urban Conservation Areas. At the time, internal development within UCAs was allowed. The design of some of the proposed internal developments was completely unacceptable. The size and shape of the site was not conducive to allow any kind of internal development. In their evaluation, Mepa’s case officers only considered the quantitative criteria in the policy and completely ignored qualitative criteria. With this approach, developments, which should have been rejected outright on the basis of design, were recommended for approval. Subsequently, the policy was changed to disallow internal developments in UCAs.

Another example is the policy that allowed for protruding rooms from facades. The idea behind the policy was to allow flexibility to produce a more interesting design. The result was many developments with excessively protruding facades on the upper floors with virtually no effort of design. The developers were more concerned to increase floor space and possibly the number of units rather than the impact that their development would have on the streetscape. The policy was subsequently amended in an effort to get better designs of façades.

These examples suggest that, at least until 2005, the conditions were not in place for a flexible policy framework to provide quality design.

Another pre-condition for a flexible planning system to work is an environment lobby that is able to analyse development proposals objectively. There is a small minority of individuals, who call themselves environmentalists, who are excessively destructive in their approach. A flexible planning system will fail unless there is mature discussion on project proposals.

Regretfully, therefore, in my opinion Malta has to adopt a planning system that weighs more heavily in favour of a rigid planning policy framework, the reason being that the conditions are not in place for a more flexible planning system to work. Hopefully, over time, through a concerted effort by all and appropriate investment by the government, the situation will improve such that the legislator could introduce greater flexibility in our planning system.

In his contribution Vince Cassar states: “The planning system requires both flexibility and rigidity – in the right places. There is no inconsistency in this.” I do not disagree with this statement. I also agree with him when he refers to various shortcomings in the operations of Mepa.

With reference to the need for flexibility in the planning system however, he refers to “issues of principle” but is very vague as to what these “issues of principle” are. This vagueness suggests that where and when there should be flexibility of the process depends more on the individual expressing the opinion and the specific circumstances of the case, rather than any matter relating to principle.

The degree of flexibility that is appropriate for Malta’s planning system needs to be given due consideration in the forthcoming reform of its planning system.

John Ebejer

Chairman

BICC