How Mepa can become more efficient

Mepa has very often been subjected to harsh criticism from various quarters, mostly consisting in the condemnation of its excessive bureaucracy and inefficiency. It has also suffered a severe and continuous decline in public confidence from its inception in 1991, mostly as a result of an array of highly-questionable decisions and the application of what to many may seem to be a "two-weights-two-measures" policy.

Mepa was originally established as an authority committed to the separation of planning issues and considerations from the political sphere, mostly in reaction to the lawless 1970s and 1980s in this area. Independence, efficiency and public confidence in a fair and independent process was the main motive behind its establishment. So where has Mepa failed?

Let me start from the outset by declaring that it is Azzjoni Nazzjonali's view that Mepa has in its employment various experienced and capable personnel who have furnished the public with large quantities of valid information, studies and reports on various aspects of planning and the environment. AN, however, believes there are a number of problems afflicting Mepa.

AN is committed to deal with Mepa's challenges through constructive action. Mepa should regain its image as a credible and democratic authority to be admired by most Maltese and Gozitan citizens. While many have resorted to criticism from a distance, without coming up with any concrete suggestions or, at least, a roadmap forward, AN abides by the principle of more action and less talk.

AN is proposing the following changes, which, we are convinced, will assist in Mepa becoming more efficient, saving the public unnecessary extra expenses and avoiding excessive bureaucracy. The following are some of our proposals:

The merger of the functions of the environment regulator and the planning regulator has, unfortunately, not been successful. This is the view shared by most people who regularly deal with Mepa as well as by officials within the same authority. The government is aware of the fact that the total number of employees within Mepa has now reached about 450. Such a large organisation has become more difficult to manage and, therefore, AN is proposing the separation of the two functions, creating two separate and autonomous bodies operating independently from separate buildings. We also suggest that instead of the government renting further office space from the private sector, as announced recently, it should utilise existing public property to house the environment authority. Both regulators (for planning and for the environment) have a major role to play in assuring sustainable development, however both also continuously clash on many issues, which clashes, more often than not, lead to excessive bureaucracy and protraction. A properly-regulated separation of the authorities should prove to be a useful step in mitigating this problem. AN considers that the fact that the built-up area already covers 23 per cent of available space is an alarming situation that should be dealt with seriously with the aim of protecting the remaining arable and pristine land outside the development area. We are therefore committed that land designated outside the development zone, approved by Parliament till 2006, will not be allowed to be developed, unless as approved by Parliament or by a referendum. In this way it would be ascertained that areas outside development zones enjoy maximum protection.

Permits already issued, whether outline or full permit, would not be affected as they fall under the present laws. In this way, we will be ensuring that Mepa, or any other authority which follows, will not be allowed to approve development permits in protected zones. On the contrary, any development application in such zones will automatically be refused by Mepa and referred to Parliament. AN feels that Mepa could be more efficient by reducing the need for an outline application. In most cases, if an application is within the building zone and in conformity with the local plans already approved by Parliament, the only thing necessary should be an official letter requesting confirmation from the planning authority on the nature and extent of the development allowed on the site in question, naturally subject to certain conditions to be imposed once the application for a full permit application is submitted.

One could consider this as "an official letter of advice" from the planning authority. This would imply that the applicant would be in a position to sell or devise a business plan and apply for financing for the planned project without wasting precious time. If an applicant disagrees with the official advice letter, he can apply for an outline permit with the criteria and conditions being in accordance with the present procedure. Naturally, following the issue of official advice by the planning authority, an applicant would have to apply for a full development permit. An applicant would still be able to apply for a full permit at the initial stage.

AN feels that this proposal is required because, on many occasions, an applicant incurs a big expense, consisting in architects and consultants fees, and, then, after the original application has been filed would be required to change plans, in many cases starting again from scratch. This involves a lot of unnecessary expense. Adoption of this proposal should eliminate such expense and result in a more efficient application process.

In the case of applications for major projects where an outline application is needed, AN proposes that the applicant will have the right to convert it to a full application during the same process without the need of submitting a new application.

This can be done after the necessary clarifications regarding the plans are made with the directorate. This will avoid the long and expensive process of filing a new application and eliminates unnecessary extra costs and time.

AN believes that, as a rule, the government should not interfere in issues falling within the competence of Mepa and that, in the rare cases where it should be involved, it must do so transparently and with the full knowledge of the public. It is conceded that some projects do rely on government decisions. One example is the SmartCity project which, coincidentally, had already been inaugurated by the Prime Minister in Dubai prior to discussion, never mind the granting of a permit, by Mepa. The same applies to a number of infrastructure projects and the proposed harbour projects etc. The government must come clean and declare its direct involvement and decision-making capacity! The law allows the government to overrule Mepa decisions. However, on the other hand, democracy requires that this should be done with the full knowledge of the public.

Undeclared government interference leads to negative effects, including a situation whereby developers and applicants end up looking like beggars imploring government ministers to get what should, after all, be theirs by right. More discretionary power to ministers leads to more arrogance towards "unfriendly" applicants. Mepa's board members, directorate and other officials should welcome applications from developers (Mepa's clients) who are not to be regarded as unwanted clients and those destroying our islands. These officials should do their utmost to support sustainable development by striking a balance between the need for development, environmental considerations and social impact, all of which are determining factors affecting the way our country develops and our quality of life. When an application is submitted for evaluation, the directorate or officials should be there to assist and guide the applicant by quoting the right and balanced Structure Plan or Local Plan policies and should not just highlight policies supporting the development if they personally favour an application or policies mitigating against the development if they oppose the application. Board members should be briefed by Mepa's officials by being given a balanced view and a clear picture of all considerations relevant to an application, ensuring that applicants are given a fair hearing and the opportunity to bring forward their case before a final decision is made.

The creation of quality developments should be one of Mepa's main objectives. It should also encourager complex-type development where possible. More attention should be given to quality of architecture and an energy audit. The present organisational structure within Mepa does not allow time for this aspect to be given adequate attention. AN believes there is an urgent need for the setting up of two other sections within the planning authority: An Aesthetics Board to regulate all issues of an architectural nature and an Energy Board to oversee energy compliance. It is interesting to note that Malta had committed itself to have the latter in place as of January 1, 2007 however, to date, this has unfortunately not yet been implemented.

AN wants to reorganise Mepa in a just manner in order to regain its credibility, be efficient and offer a decent democratic and transparent service to all applicants, concentrating on promoting sustainable development to be cherished and admired by this and future generations.

Mr Xuereb is deputy leader of Azzjoni Nazzjonali.