‘Smaller MEPA board, more training for decision-makers’
James Debono
The planning authority’s union of professional staff is proposing the replacement of MEPA’s three development control commissions (DCC) with just one full-time board, composed of an architect, a lawyer, a planner, an environmental professional and a representative from the Local Councils Association.
UPAP (Union Professjonisti tal-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar), says its proposal will eliminate the conflict of interest faced by the architects sitting on DCCs, which are part-time boards.
Architects who are also DCC members are obliged to step down from their decision-making role to avoid a conflict when their clients’ cases are presented.
But they can also represent their client before the DCC board, raising questions on the impartiality of the other DCC members.
A full-time board is one of the main proposals UPAP has presented in a memorandum it has sent to the Office of the Prime Minister and seen exclusively by MaltaToday.
The memo had been finalised in April 2008 with the intention of presenting it to the Prime Minister personally. But their request for a meeting was never answered in the past year, until UPAP was asked in March to send its submissions.
UPAP said it wants the MEPA board to be downsized from 15 to seven members to increase accountability and decrease the risks of conflicts of interest.
It says board members must “undergo training covering the main aspects of planning and environmental issues,” before being appointed.
It called for a reform of the Planning Appeals Board, by ensuring development works are stopped before an appeals decision is made, otherwise it would be senseless to stop a development when works have been finalised.
It also said third parties should be liable for damages when appeals are lodged on trivial grounds.
UPAP also called for a reform of the way EIAs (environmental impact assessments) are conducted. “These studies are paid by the applicants. It’s an open secret that if an application is refused the consultant may not be paid for the work done.”
UPAP said this meant EIAs “gloss over” the possible damage of projects, leading MEPA to base its decisions on “partial or untrue information.”
UPAP said it a government agency should be set up as an intermediary between EIA consultants and developers, to ensure consultants are paid whether or not an application is refused. Consultants could be paid directly by the agency, which charges developers for the EIA costs, and also monitor the prices charged for EIAs.
The union added that MEPA’s planning and environmental arms should be integrated better to avoid the present scenario where “development is given priority over the environment because of the associated economic value.”
It said merging the Development Planning Act and the Environment Protection Act would give equal importance to planning and environmental considerations.
As regards enforcement it is calling for the formation of one directorate, merging both the environment inspectorate and the planning enforcement. It is also calling for a new board of various MEPA officers to have a final say on enforcement matters. “This way, enforcement orders will gain importance and not remain just another official paper on a shelf… once a decision is taken to demolish or close down a development, the decision is implemented.”
UPAP also wants a mechanism to filter major applications that are unacceptable in principle. “Clear non-starters should be refused outright.”
It added that “white elephant projects” that can never be realistic should be discouraged.
An interesting suggestion is the creation of an aesthetics board, administrated by the Kamra tal-Periti (chamber of architects) to regulate the quality of architectural aesthetics by vetting and certifying planning applications for new building facades.
UPAP added that both architect and NGOs should be put to greater scrutiny. It said most of the time architects present applications not according to approved policies and design guidelines. “Should the MEPA reform not address this lack of professionalism, the reform will be a failure,” UPAP’s memo warns.
A legal framework and code of ethics is also suggested for NGOs directly consulted by MEPA. “NGOs are sometimes not perceived to be acting according to what they are portraying as their main objectives. Indeed it is important that NGOs declare what and whose interest they are representing.”
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
