Malta's planning system is based on speculation, Andre Pizzuto, president of the Chamber of Architects & Civil Engineers told The Malta Independent on Sunday.

The government over summer announced a set of planning reforms which it intends to implement, but the proposals sparked uproar, and activists have been organising protests calling for the government to withdraw the bills it had tabled in Parliament.

Asked whether he believes the government should go back to the drawing board and hold a wider consultation process on what planning reforms in Malta should look like, given the widespread opposition to the planning bills, Pizzuto said that the controversy around the bills "is perhaps not the main issue we have. Much of the controversy is fuelled by anger towards the industry and the degradation of the built environment".

He said that a planning reform needs to be deeper, and much more meaningful. "It's not a matter of fixing the law." The Chamber does not agree with the current planning system, "and we have been saying so since at least 2007", he said.

"There are technical reasons for this. Our planning system is based on speculation. Speculation is wreaking havoc on our built environment and on our quality of life and we seem to have one government administration after another being unable to respond to this, either because they are not recognising it as a problem, or because they don't know how to handle it. As a result, successive governments have sought to tweak what we have. But that is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic," he said

As a result of the situation, he said, any move made that raises suspicion of intent "is met with an aggressive backlash".

He said that the Chamber has made proposals for amendments to the bills that were tabled in Parliament. While the text of the bills have issues which need to be fixed, the bigger picture also needs to be considered. He described the bigger picture as being whether the country's political class is doing enough to improve quality of life, or is actually harming it. "It's a complex debate, but it needs to be addressed."

Pizzuto said that the main issue is the planning system and policy documents. "There is more harm being done there to our country than through the planning bills themselves."

Pizzuto took aim at the local plans, which he said set land uses and building heights as parameters for landowners, "but they were not designed as a plan of action for the public sector to implement". He said that they weren't designed with a plan in mind regarding how an area would be developed in terms of energy, transport, sewage and storm water infrastructure, public transport, and other services.

"We are seeing the result of this. We are suffering because of the lack of planning."

What the country has, Pizzuto explained, are instruments to guide decision-makers in granting permits. "That is not planning, that is development control. We have no planning, only instruments to dish out permits. This is why our planning system is failing."

"We were against the local plans when they came out. We have been consistent in our position against the local plans. What they did, in effect, was to stimulate and encourage people to pull their houses down and build, with all the consequences and inconvenience this brought about including noise, dust, drainage spilling to our seas, landfilling."

"These are the consequences of poor decisions taken back in the day which nobody seems to be able to overcome," he said.

But Pizzuto believes the situation can be fixed. "It will be expensive, but it is not impossible to right the ship."

This was one of the reasons the Chamber set up the National Building Council with the Malta Developers Association, he said. "Many people looked at us with suspicion when we did. The reason the Chamber did this is because we need to have platforms where we can engage in constructive debate rather than putting up walls, and through discussion, debate and persuasion, try to resolve these deeply set problems."

Moving away from local plans towards master plans

Asked how, in his view, the planning system could be fixed, Pizzuto believes the country would need to gradually move away from the local plans.

Instead, he believes the country needs to gradually move towards master plans. "There needs to be an appraisal of all our islands, and we need to prioritise those areas in worse shape and draft master plans for them, designing them properly from all aspects, including building volumes, massing, the materials used for construction, parks, trees, benches, transport and other infrastructure."

Aside from some urban planning exercises in the 50s and 60s, "we've never had proper town planning and urban design", he said.

He clarified that he is not saying that safeguards like what marks an ODZ area should be removed. "Obviously there needs to be some goal posts. There still needs to be a level of regulation of land in general, so such classifications will still be needed."

What we have today is a system whereby the government is passive in developing the country, "except for token gestures here and there", he said. "It is the landowners who establish how the country is going to be developed and what it is going to look like on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis. This is also why the aesthetics in the country are lacking, as there is no coordination of the outcomes," he said.

"If a developer wants to do something with his land, the developer would do whatever he can to get it approved, because if a local plan allows for it, or if a local plan partial review can be approved to accommodate it, then that is what will be done regardless of everything else and how everyone else feels. This is because we have this notion that someone has a right to develop land with as few restrictions as possible."

Asked whether he would concede that streetscape aesthetic issues in Malta are also an architectural problem, he agreed.

"One thing we have been calling for over the years is the need for a National Architectural Policy." He said that Malta is one of only two European countries that doesn't have one. "Besides the embarrassment of not having one, it is a big problem."

The kind of architectural policy the Chamber wants would come in the form of a strategic document, which systematically analyses all the problems regarding architecture, from the way it is being taught, to the way it is practised by architects, the way permits are granted, the way public tenders are awarded, the cultural attitude towards architecture, and public awareness about what constitutes good or bad architecture, among other things.

"Once that is done, then there would be a strategic plan of action, with milestone timelines set for what needs to be fixed or achieved, and periodic reviews," the Chamber president said.

Changing the way architecture is assessed

One proposal the Chamber would want included in such a policy is changing the way architecture is assessed at planning application stage. The PA seems to be favourable to the concept, he added.

"At the moment, if a planning application is compliant with planning policy but is ugly, it would be approved."

"Design is not black or white, there is an iterative process behind achieving a quality outcome - you cannot just take a shortcut like our planning policies try to do."

When the PA decides on an application, it should have the power to reject an application on the basis of poor design, which is not happening, he said. He added that when an appeal is filed on an application, architectural merit such as context is determined by the court, "which in the absence of any better system is the only way, but it is not the ideal system for good architecture".

'System pushes for good legal outcomes, not good architectural ones'

"The system pushes for a good legal outcome, not a good architectural outcome."

The PA CEO had previously told this newsroom that discussions between the Chamber and the PA to create a Design Architectural Policy are taking place, and Pizzuto confirmed. The Chamber wants Design Review Panels to be part of the policy, he said.

"This is a system that exists in most Commonwealth countries. Here, the architect and client would present the project to a panel of architects, in what we call a 'crit', something we did at university but stop doing once we graduate. It would be a public forum. The crit is essentially a presentation of the design, and the panel of architects would review the design on the basis of architectural merit." These panels would not look at policy, he said, adding that policies are law, not architecture.

"This panel will give a recommendation solely on the architectural merit or not, and if the panel is comfortable with giving a positive recommendation, then the applicant could then use it in support of their planning application. Then all that would be left for the PA to review would be the objective facts, such as if the development type is allowed in the area, whether any environmental mitigation measures are needed, etc." This method, he said, would create a culture of participation in design, as during this design review crit setup the public would also be able to participate.

"The public would be involved and aware of the design before an applicant even files a planning application. I am sure this negative feeling towards our sector will reduce once we have a more participatory system."

Regarding the planning bills, he said that some of the issues being raised by protestors are justified, and the Chamber agrees with some of the points they have made. "For instance we don't think the use of the minor modification procedure for material changes to the local plans without parliamentary scrutiny is an appropriate approach. The explanations we are hearing from the government is that it is not what they intended to do, but obviously the devil is in the detail, so if the text of the bills does not reflect what was intended, then we expect to see amendments in the bills to address this issue."

Pizzuto was also asked about specific provisions within the planning reform bills - PA CEO Johann Buttigieg had said that if more than 75% of the owners of a block agree, they can file an application to change the building height. "That's not the way it should be done," Pizzuto said. "It reinforces the idea that landowners decide what our towns and built environment should look like, not the architects, planning authority or the government. This is a retreat of planning and is not a good approach. The planning system should be there to safeguard the public good, not the rights of landowners."

Landowners could apply to raise their building heights to 20 storeys if 75% agree, he said. "The PA would have to approve that for it to actually happen, but what are the criteria? This is speculation not planning."

He was asked about the proposed recency rule. Currently, if there is an inconsistency between policies, the existing act establishes a hierarchy of priorities. But the bills propose that if there is a conflict between plans and subsidiary legislation, then the latest policies would take precedence. "We understand the reason why the government proposed this, because the local plans are old and there could be issues with them. But making parallels with laws, a legal notice can never overrule the Constitution. The Constitution in the Planning system is the SPED. If the SPED is faulty or the local plans have problems, you need to fix where the problem is. I think this planning reform proposal will have unintended consequences."

The second part of the interview will be published tomorrow