Architects and planners recently discussed the pros and cons of structural and spatial planning systems.

With reform in the air, this looks like a good time to make the leap to a new planning system. Ongoing reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) is peppered with lively discussions over which system is best.

An exchange of views at a public debate organised by the Chamber of Architects jointly with the Chamber of Planners compared structural and spatial planning disciplines.

Presently we are still under a structural system, an approach based on land use, rather too single-mindedly focused on the issuing of permits.

The problem with a structural approach to planning is that by the time a plan is researched and prepared, it is already outdated. The present structure plan has been criticised for being "completely outdated" while little has been done to update it in the last 10 years.

Decisions lose their democratic element when public consultations cannot not keep up with the changes in the plan.

Worse still, outdated plans have left authorities with little alternative but to accommodate "other material considerations" when determining a permit.

Structural planning was abandoned by the UK more than 20 years ago in favour of spatial planning. Regional spatial strategies were adopted in the UK earlier this year.

Urban planning expert Paul Gauci spoke on the pros and cons of the two systems, clarifying that simply because a type of development might be indicated in the structure plan this did not mean an automatic permit.

A spatial approach to planning would set out to integrate sectoral policies. Changes that had happened but were not reflected in an out-of-date plan could still be taken into account with discretion.

The correct use of discretion, often a double-edged sword, is important when determining a permit application. Environ-mentalists and developers both refer to this provision.

Rigid application of distances and measurements may make planning seem like a strait jacket. On the other hand, too much flexibility and deviation from guidelines may eat away at structure and controls.

Height limitation is one area where discretion is being applied in concept; yet in reality, "up to four floors" is often taken as meaning that four floors are mandatory.

Planning in this country is still young - the islands were only declared a planning zone in1962.

Designation as a planning area brought in the concept that people may have a right to use the land but not always exactly how they wished, while keeping in mind the benefit of the wider community.

The reform's proposed shift towards a strategic planning unit within the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) could be viewed as taking a step back towards centralisation when decentralisation has been the general direction, yet some of the reasons behind the Castille migration may be valid. Mepa has struggled at times to collect information from ministries. Requests for information from the OPM might be better received.

Whatever is decided, it must be owned by central government and no longer be perceived as being owned by Mepa. The planning authority could continue as more of a monitoring authority.

The process has begun for forming a national policy on the environment, said Parliamentary Secretary Mario De Marco, who is responsible for Mepa reform. He noted: "Mepa did not always react quickly enough where policy was not giving the right results or being implemented well."

Strategic actions from central government is the norm in a number of countries today, notably The Netherlands and the UK. By contrast, the American planning system, with its zoning plans, is seen as rather extreme.

With a spatial planning system which refers to sectoral policies there would be less need for continual updating of plans.

Unlike the Baltic States, a regional planning strategy for the Mediterranean has not been drawn up, leading to peripherality for Malta and its neighbours.

Planning gain turns controversial when big developers allocate it in their costings to effectively 'buy' a permit. The authority then spends that money in areas some distance from the site, transferring mitigation of impact to a different place.

Another debate circles around whether local councils are mature enough to be trusted with planning decisions. On the plus side, it can be said local councils have more experience and knowledge of their own area than central government. If properly funded, local councils could hire their own planning consultants.

Great care should be taken to avoid a situation where there is a plan, but no law. Decisions are being based on the mistaken idea that when someone breaches the plan and gets away with it, it goes on to become legislation.

Areas designated for sports are being given over to embassies; multinational companies vie with local retail outlets of small and medium enterprises for space. Living environments such as streetscapes are hardly regulated.

Former minister Michael Falzon loosely quoted Shakespeare: "Some are planners, some study planning and some have planning thrust upon them." He added that planning is a discriminatory process, mostly based on common sense.

We can expect there will always be tension between certainty and flexibility in planning. Architect Godwin Cassar said Mepa was wasting too much time on blind allegiance to facts and figures when processing applications and complained of the authority's "inflexibility."

It appears that applicants expect flexibility from Mepa when those impacted by development prefer rigidity.

Planner Vince Magri, who drew up some of the local plans during his time at Mepa, pointed out that planning should mean quality of spaces, not just permits. "In Malta we do not yet have a system based on planning as a profession." He praised the government for having a strategy but there was a need to see how it would be interpreted on the ground.

The rationalisation plans to extend building outside the development zone in 2006 were described by one architect as devoid of planning value. Within the space of a few weeks, politicians decided where to extend with no consultation of needs of the community, only aiming to maximise the development of plots.

Architect Philip Grech, fearing a nexus at high levels, said it was essential to keep public participation in the process. With regard to water catchment plans drawn up by the Malta Resources Authority, he remarked that there was an "incredible lack" of figures and analysis even on essentials such as water.

A cross-sectoral, real-time approach would require time limits in place and enough resources to meet them, he said.

Planning consultant Bjorn Bonello warned that new mechanisms were needed to address designation of areas. "We need knowledge so when we depart from policy we know why and how to justify it," he said, adding that there was no room for mistakes since land is not a renewable resource.