Reforming Mepa - how?

Any proposed reform within the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is typically warranted to secure a more efficient and transparent planning mechanism framework. Although it is statistically claimed that the majority of submitted development applications are decided on time, the lack of consistency and excessive bureaucracy within the authority's administrative structures remain two major concerns. Certainly, a concerted approach supported by a clear strategy framework is the key requisite for more transparency and consistency.

1. The Structure Plan is a legal instrument that acknowledges that once a Local Plan for any particular area has been approved, applications in that particular area are to be considered mainly and principally in the light of what is specified in the particular Local Plan. This undoubtedly results from a thorough reading of paragraph 4.7 (page 7) of the final written statement of the Structure Plan which says: "Until the Local Plan for any particular area is approved, control procedures will generally be derived from existing legislation the Development Planning Act (DPA), and the policies and guidelines of the Structure Plan and Explanatory Memorandum." This in no unclear terms means that once a Local Plan has been approved, it is this Local Plan that overrides any other plan or policy. Against this background, the authority should at no point identify further reasons for refusal, which are not reflected in the Local Plan, and therefore should refrain from imposing other restrictions without sound legal basis.

2. Current planning law stipulates that planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the law in force at the time of decision. However, this rationale needs to be aligned with the spirit governing criminal law, which prescribes that when the law in force at the time of the offence and the subsequent law are different, decisions should be taken according to the law that is more favourable to the applicant. In criminal law, if the law in force at the time of trial is less favourable to the accused than the law in force at the time of offence, it is the latter that should be applied retrospectively to his prejudice. On the contrary, if the new law is more favourable to the accused than the law which in force at the time the offence was committed, then it is the new law that should be applied. Consequently, this would mean that if planning policies change after a planning application is submitted, so that the new policy is less favourable to the applicant, then the decision should be taken on the basis of policies that prevailed at the time of application.

3. It should be possible for the quantitative criteria laid out in planning policy guidelines not to be necessarily fulfilled, provided that the objectives of the Structure Plan are still reached. In parallel, the Development Control Commissions (DCC) should focus their efforts entirely on having buildings based on aesthetics and design architectural quality.

4. Although there are already clear legal provisions in the DPA, external consultees, such as government departments and state agencies, should furnish the authority with views within a stipulated one-month period during the application process, which should not be extended for any reason. If an external consultee fails to respond within the stipulated time, it should be assumed that there is no objection to the proposed development.

5. Case officers should be allowed to ask for more information from applicants only once during the entire application process, during which pending issues should be highlighted. At the same time, in-depth studies should be requested only under exceptional circumstances, should a specific and particular need arise.

6. Once an application for development is formally approved by the commission, applicants should be allowed to proceed immediately with the commencement of works under the direction of the architect in charge in accordance with the latest submitted plans, without the need to wait for the receipt of the permit.

7. Case officers and planning decision bodies should be obliged to take full cognisance of past planning decisions to ensure a consistent decision framework. If in the opinion of the case officer, decisions quoted by the applicant are ignored, the reasons should be clearly highlighted. This would help create a sentencing policy, which is certainly welcome.

8. When an application is deferred by the commission, the date of the next hearing should be communicated to the applicant and rescheduled within a reasonable time.

9. Development Notification Orders pursuant to Legal Notice 115/07 dated April 24, 2007, should be handled by local councils to reduce the current workload on the authority.

10. Applications that are not processed by case officers within the set timeframe should be transmitted to the Development Control Commission, provided all information required by the applicant is in place.