Editorial: The Planning Authority misses the bigger picture

In a reply to our editorial dated October 12, the Planning Authority described its actions in the Porziuncola House case as containing “incorrect” information.

It clarifies that “appeals” are heard in front of the Planning Tribunal, a body supposedly independent of the authority, and that the Porziuncola House sitting was a “request for invocation of article 80 of the Development Planning Act”.

This is correct but, like the rest of the letter, wilfully misses the point of our editorial.

The Planning Tribunal is led by Joseph Borg, up until recently a PA employee seconded to it for five years.

Current CEO Martin Saliba had held the same position on the tribunal, consistently infuriating activists and residents with his decisions.

This results in a PA employee deciding on cases involving his employer. How this blatant conflict of interest guarantees the tribunal’s “full independence” from the authority is a mystery.

It must also be noted that, unless they’ve filed an objection, residents, such as those living near Porziuncola House, cannot appeal any PA decision. The Madliena residents failed to appeal simply because the site notices were not visible, also the authority’s...