Tomorrow, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi will unveil his long-awaited reform of the Malta Environment & Planning Authority. Raphael Vassallo talks to stakeholders to find out what is expected from developers and heritage watchdogs alike
When it comes to environmental considerations, it seems everyone is always a loser.
Environmentalists accuse the Malta Environment & Planning Authority of pandering to the wealthy construction lobby; on their part, developers complain of undue delays in the planning application process, and of a ‘two weights, two measures’ scenario when it comes to applying the same policies to different projects.
Balancing the two extremes is often a thankless and quite frankly impossible task. So when Lawrence Gonzi announced his intention to reform the Malta Environment & Planning Authority shortly before last year’s election, the proposed reform quickly rose to become a number one public concern.
The reform is expected to be unveiled tomorrow, and so far there have been limited indications as to what it might contain. At first sight, these appear to suggest that Gonzi’s reform will most likely facilitate, rather than hinder development, with the Prime Minister suggesting maximum time-limits within which planning applications will have to be processed.
But with environmentalist discontent on the increase, some form of conciliatory measure will also have to be thrown in, if nothing to keep Gonzi’s own green credentials alive.
Certainly, both environmental and industry lobbyists will be eagerly awaiting tomorrow’s revelations, albeit for vastly different reasons.
Speaking on behalf of the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (FOBC), developer Angelo Xuereb of AX Holdings Ltd was cautiously optimistic the proposed reform.
“We welcome the proposals which have been reported so far in the newspapers – i.e, that planning applications should be adjudicated within a maximum limit of three months, or six months for large or complex applications,” he said when contacted yesterday. “We have been asking for this reform for a number of years; I myself have written numerous articles on the subject of unnecessary delays in the application process.”
Xuereb agrees that the planning adjudication deadlines announced by the Prime Minister are important.
“We hope that MEPA will keep to these timeframes when it comes to evaluating applications,” he said. “However, it is not clear whether this three-month time-limit will also apply to pending applications. There are a number of applications awaiting adjudication by MEPA, and these cannot be ignored in the new reform. Pending applications ought to be given priority.”
Apart from the details already announced in the press, the FOBC would like to see more balance in the composition of MEPA’s boards and Development Control Commissions.
“There is need for persons with technical experience in the building and construction industry,” Xuereb added. “When it comes applications for large-scale projects, the Board members are being presented with details of an application by the Directorate during ‘informal meetings’ prior to the formal hearing. As a result, when the developer comes to present his case to the Board, he will often find that there is already an inbuilt bias about the project, which is unfair. What is needed is that applicants are guaranteed a fair hearing: i.e., that the Board members taking decisions give due consideration to both sides of the argument (i.e., the applicants’ as well as objectors’ view) at the same hearing, and above all to have the necessary expertise to take decisions accordingly.”
Admittedly however, things are not always as straightforward
“Where there are complications, the board may request further information before taking a final decision, even if this may require further discussion during another Board meeting.”
On the other side of the chasm, conservation NGO Din L-Art Helwa is equally apprehensive regarding the reform. But though the concerns here are different, the overall demands appears to be more or less the same: a balanced approach which safeguards the environment without placing too many spokes in the wheels of bona fide development.
“Din l-Art Helwa insists that we need clear and consistent application of planning policies,” vice president Petra Bianchi told MaltaToday. “However, nothing will be achieved unless good policies are accompanied by good governance.”
Part of the problem appears to involve inconsistent or conflicting interpretations of planning policies.
“The way that decisions are taken lies at the heart of everything, as it is possible to interpret policies in different ways,” Bianchi continues. “For example, the government has said that it will control Outside Development Zone (ODZ) construction, so this aim should guide all decision-making, but it is frequently ignored. MEPA could already protect ODZ areas even without a reform, as many regulations are already in place: the problem is the way that the policies are interpreted.”
The same goes for the protection of our village cores and historic sites.
“And some aspects of planning are not bound by any national policies whatsoever, such as high rise buildings, even though they have a such a big impact on their surroundings,” Bianchi observes, echoing widespread environmentalist concern at the fact that controversial decisions (such as waiving maximum height restrictions) are taken in the absence of any policy framework.
“DLH looks to the government to take this situation in hand to ensure that decisions at Mepa favour the protection of the environment while allowing sustainable development.”
Bridging the two extremes is the Today Public Policy Institute, which presented its report on ‘The Environmental Deficit: The Reform of MEPA and the other Regulatory Authorities’ to the Prime Minister in April 2008.
Director General Martin Scicluna appears confident that TPPI’s proposals may be taken on board in tomorrow’s reform.
“When TTPI presented its report to the Prime Minister, he seemed most appreciative of the proposals which had been put forward and seemed ready to act on them,” Scicluna explains. “In the 15 months which have since elapsed, the Prime Minister has had to listen to many other views on the subject and has experienced for himself the complexity of the issues covered by MEPA, and also some of the appalling gaps in its procedures highlighted by us and others,” he continues.
According to the TPPI director, the fundmental issue concerning MEPA at present is a matter of trust in the institution.
“The supreme test of the reform process will be to see whether public respect for the way MEPA operates can be won back after the battering of the last few years,” Scicluna explains. “If MEPA does not function efficiently - if its procedures, its structure and leadership are suspect - its baleful effects are felt by everybody.”
Scicluna points out that the authority has in a sense also undermined its own credibility.
“MEPA has suffered a number of set-backs arising from a spate of perverse high profile decisions at Board and Commission level, especially under the previous Minister for the Environment before the Prime Minister was forced to take matters under his own wing.”
As a result, MEPA’s public standing has undeniably been dented.
“The acid test of the Gonzi Reforms will be whether his proposals provide MEPA with the necessary resources and structural improvements needed to bolster public faith in the leadership of the organisation, and in the integrity of the processes underpinning its regulatory responsibilities.”
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.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
