The Planning Authority’s sanctioning procedure should not be allowed to be abused, and the board must always take a harsh stance against those who ignore the Planning Authority’s decisions, build anyway, and then ask for the PA to sanction that development later.

It is not rare that people were caught out, constructing a development without having the required permission, only to then later apply for permission to sanction their illegally built structures. Approving such applications only further adds to the problem, as more and more people would think that they could do whatever they want with little consequence.

Indeed in some cases, such as when a property transfers hands to a new owner only for him to realise that the development was not according to permit, or for slight mistakes in terms of room size for example, sanctioning is an effective tool that helps fix such erroneous mistakes.

However, when someone decides to construct a room, or a building, or add an extension knowing that they do not have permission from the Planning authority, and then tries to get it sanctioned is wrong, and the Planning authority should take a hard line against such proposals.

Indeed just recently, an application came to this newsroom’s attention to sanction structures which were never permitted to be built, some of which have been the subject of enforcement notices back in 1996.

Indeed questions sent to the Planning authority about the case received the following response: “The site in question is subject is to active enforcement notices EC 562/96, EC 679/97 and EC 86/98 which relate to the unauthorised construction of workshops, garages and offices together with a batching plant and ancillary operations. The majority of the structures subject to enforcement action were first visible in 1994 aerial photography, prior to which the area comprised of agricultural land. This office has no records of any planning permissions authorising the said structures/uses, however it must be highlighted that the current planning application is attempting to sanction all the infringements on this site.”

The Planning Authority will have to decide whether to allow this development to remain and give it the ok, or take action.

Given that the enforcement notices had been registered so many years ago, perhaps more speedy direct action would have been better. Now if there are laws preventing this, or allowing certain delaying tactics to prevent stronger action from being taken by the authorities, such laws probably need to be amended.

The Planning Authority needs to, in cases where such direct development takes place without authorisation, take more direct action themselves rather than just issue fines or warning. Not doing so sends a message that Malta is like the wild west, a criticism which has already been around for a number of years.

If the authority does accept the sanctioning of this development, then it will need to explain itself thoroughly, given that past PA boards already rejected the application for such construction. If it doesn’t accept it, then direct and immediate action is required.

Malta needs a stronger Planning Authority, not one which is viewed as bending the knee to developers, or one that has a toothless enforcement arm. If need be, change the law and improve the enforcement facilities within the authority. Give it some bite to back up its bark.