Whoa, there!

You are quite tedious you know but I’ll try to give you an explanation anyway. As jae rightly said, the Structure Plan provides only a general strategy and is implemented in practice through Local Plans.

“1.2 The purpose of the (Structure) Plan, following approval by Parliament, is to provide:
1. A strategic direction and context to guide both Government and the private sector in matters concerning Malta’s development over the next twenty years.”
(from Part 1: The Structure Plan Strategy)

In the words of the Plan itself it is “a strategic context for the preparation of site specific Local Plans, Subject Plans, Action Plans, ….”
Another quotation from the Structure Plan itself is in order here:

“1.10 ……. In general however, further planning policies and planning procedures will result from Local Plans, Subject Plans, Action Plans, Briefs, and also statutory instruments drawn up after the approval of the Development Planning Act.”

When processing development applications MEPA bases its policies, not on the Structure Plan but on the Local Plans and POLICY COM1, part of which you are quoting (actually parroting Astrid Vella and Miriam Cremona), is superseded by the Grand Harbour Local Plan of 2002. This originally stated that Freedom and Palace Sqr. should become underground carparks (Policy GV12).

In 2009 Policy GV12 was amended because canals and passages had been found under Palace Sqr and government had expressed its intention to regenerate the City Gate area.

Moreover, Policy GV29 of 2009 states, inter alia:

MEPA will support the redesign of both City Gate and Freedom Square provided:
(i) The proposals for Freedom Square normally include institutional (legislative) /cultural / entertainment / leisure orientated uses. Retail shall not exceed 20% of the
total commercial floorspace.

Policy GV28 speaks of the Opera House site and allows “a wider interpretation of the type of physical interventions which can be considered on the site rather than strictly a “building”.”

This comment is longer than I usually like to make and might be too technical for you Whoa there, but if you read it carefully, and perhaps carry out your own research, you’ll understand that the permit issued by MEPA was perfectly legitimate and legal.

Incidentally, I can’t be bothered to check now but it would be interesting to find out how Roderick Galdes voted when MEPA discussed and approved the Local Plan amendments of 2009 and 2010.

This person needs to find something to occupy herself with that doesn’t make her come across as such a chump.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Astrid Vella say she does not believe in Environmental Impact Assessments during the St John Cathedral Museum saga?

In that case, we could house parliament in the Red China Dock.

@Whoa, there!
Why not tell us how you worked those percentages out, so that you prove that you are not falling into your own accusation to everyone that “Kullhadd bravu biex ifajjar!”

Int Sandro minn Had-Dingli?

Whoa there! says “In fact, the plan is quite clear in that a rehousing of parliament should be in existing structures.
The Structure Plan is a law: By approving a permit which goes out of the Structure Plan, MEPA (and government) has created a very bad precedent.”

This statement is incorrect.

Like the British planning system, the Maltese planning system allows for the deciding body to use its discretion. This is reflected in Article 33 (1) of the Act which requires the Authority to apply development plans and planning policies and have regard to any other material consideration. (British legislation also makes specific reference to “other material considerations”) Had the legislator in 1992 wanted to remove all discretionary powers of the Authority, “regard to material considerations” would have been omitted, in which case our planning system would have become closer to some planning systems on mainland Europe.

I would argue that the extent of floorspace required for the new parliament (so much so that it would not fit on the opera house site) is a material consideration. Even if a historic building large enough to house all the floorspace required would be found, there would be serious conservation issues as substantial changes to the building would be required. This too, in my view, is a material consideration.

The discretionary aspect of our planning system was explained by Prof. Refalo during the MEPA meeting. He explained that planning policy is not like any other law in that it allows for the discretion in its use. The wording of many polices, particularly those of a more strategic nature, is such that they allow for interpretation in their use.

During the same meeting, a MEPA representative explained that the Structure Plan is a planning document which gives strategic direction rather then setting out the detail of how development is to take place. The strategic direction of the policy referred to by FAA is for government departments to relocated to a new administration centre to be built at Floriana (something which subsequently did not materialise).

To use the Structure Plan and other planning policy documents, it is not a thesaurus that you need but a proper understanding of how the planning system operates.

Ultimately, the object of the planning system is to provide for good quality development and not to create artificial and unreasonable constraints.

NGT,

FAA have this weird notion that if they think it, then it must be true. That is why they use the language “FAA concluded …” and “FAA decided …” rather than “It is the opinion of FAA….” or “FAA thinks …”. The concept that hey might actually be wrong does not cross their mind.

Taking into account FAA’s extensive knowledge of economic matters, might I suggest that Astrid Vella, FAA’s leading light, is appointed as consultant to the Minister for Finance.

And while we are at it, may I also humbly propose that she is appointed also as consultant to the Minister for Culture in view of her detailed knowledge of cultural matters.

And, by the way, given that she can also design buildings (even if so far she has only reached the point of describing her designs in words on timesonline.com), the Prime Minster should really consider appointing her as adviser on special projects and give her an office in Castille as close as possible to his.

Only with Astrid Vella as adviser to Government can this nation move forward towards a brighter future!

In all their pompous proclamations, the message of FAA seems to be that government messes things up without the benefit of the wisdom of Astrid Vella.