For years now, our Planning Authority has been the subject of continuous attacks and negative criticism from various opinionists, planning experts and the media in general, due to its non-functionality in safeguarding our environment and landscapes. It has been described as an abject failure, failing the country, the nemesis of good and sensible planning, reneging on its statutory duty to stop and punish illegal developments, and continuously under siege by environmental activists. It has long been acting with impunity and perhaps the time has come to dismantle it completely and come up with an alternative, effective and competent authority as a result of a bipartisan consensus on much-needed planning reform.
One thing is for sure in light of what is stated above: climate change is one of the most salient challenges to our society, both today and in the near future. Considering the complexity, uncertainties and scale of possible local climate change impacts, there should be agreement that urban planning has the capacity to facilitate the development and implementation of adaptation as well as mitigation strategies. The land use planning system provides a framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental negative impacts considerably by addressing central issues such as community design, transportation networks and use, and increasing development density. Planning can also play an essential role in impacting public behaviour, thus slowing the pace of environmental damage and scars and allowing the development and implementation of adaptation measurements.
Planning can be an important tool for promoting private and public investment in locations that are still ripe for future sustainable development. Planning should be distinctively qualified to provide comprehensive and long-term approaches that are required to reduce these vulnerabilities through various land use and infrastructure adjustments and zoning. We should start a discussion about the role of spatial and urban planning in responding to all these concerns, and planning should start receiving increasing attention as an important policy instrument for addressing both these causes and their undesirable impacts.
The way future urban environments develop will have an impact on whether or not a resilient future and our country’s sustainable development can be achieved. The increasing destruction of the natural environment caused by bad and insensible planning policies demands the development of new strategies that improve the resilience of our towns and villages and their inhabitants and identify innovative opportunities for a sustainable development pattern.
Planners have to make sure that new developments and long-term infrastructure, such as commercial and residential buildings, roads and ports, or water and transport networks, are constructed to endure possible negative environmental impacts and weather hazards. In addition, long-lasting infrastructure also needs to be designed to decrease the energy consumption and hazardous emissions of the built environment. The responsibilities and challenges planners face when dealing with these issues can never be stressed enough.
The term “urban form”, for example, should start to include the spatial characteristics of fixed elements within a built-up region. The urban form should not only include land uses and their structure and density but also the spatial design of the transport and communication infrastructure. Urban planning has only recently been receiving attention as an instrument for changing urban forms and promoting a more sustainable development pattern. It is time to find alternatives to conventional patterns of urban design. We must consider introducing design features that, when implemented, might reduce energy and car use. These principles comprise the mixing of land uses, compact urban development, walkable neighbourhoods and transportation alternatives, as well as shorter trip lengths and improved accessibility. A mix of low-rise and high-density housing, the restoration of historic buildings and the construction of new energy-efficient office buildings can be considered a prime example of the type of urbanism needed to mitigate climate change, even in such a small country as Malta.
In another aspect, there is a link between land use and transportation, which has implications for planners. Decisions made in the transportation sector influence land use patterns and vice versa. Abroad, there is a growing popularity of smart growth and similar planning concepts as tools to reduce the negative environmental impacts of urban development. Obstacles still abound that make the implementation of a more sustainable land use development pattern difficult, such as the aversion of the government to revise the zoning codes and the lack of power within the local councils to regulate land use.
The residential urban form has a significant impact on energy demand. Furthermore, the type, age and size of housing and household density can be identified as key characteristics for reducing energy consumption when cooling or heating households. Compact towns and villages can decrease energy consumption per household compared to others, which are characterised by urban sprawl with low-density developments. Planning for adaptation, however, is not an easy task. Climate change is characterised by high levels of uncertainty and the requirements and adaptation capacity of our islands are often difficult to recognise. Rapid population growth in our communities, paired with the increasing impact of climate change, is adding significant pressure on existing infrastructure and might eventually cause it to fail. This requires institutional, technical and spatial measures to adapt to future changes.
Another question is whether or not disaster risk is factored into investment decisions in urban development. The growing rate of urbanisation and the increase in population density can lead to the creation of risk, especially when urbanisation is rapid, poorly planned and occurs in a context of little-understood circumstances. Urban development can change the environment or ecosystem through, for instance, the expansion of paved, impermeable areas that prevent rain from being absorbed by the soil, thereby increasing flood hazards, particularly in low-lying areas.
Inadequately planned and managed development also creates new risks that threaten to erode current development gains. The lack of adequate infrastructure and services and unsafe housing can turn a natural hazard into a disaster. For example, poor solid waste management can cause blockages in stormwater and sewage networks that can lead to waterlogging and flooding. Destruction or damage to infrastructure can lead to water scarcity or contamination.
Even the best-laid plans can prove to be the worst-made decisions.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer