MEPA Watch | Sunday, 12 July 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci observations on the proposed MEPA reform – part 1

Robert Musumeci’s Highlights
The constant inconsistency by MEPA in the evaluation of applications has been defined as one of the major criticisms levied at the Authority in recent years. In its proposals, the government has expressly stated that the achievement of consistency is tantamount to a successful reform in MEPA.
In today’s contribution the following objectives will be closely probed:
• The Development Planning Act and Environment Protection Act shall be harmonized into a single act that re-establishes MEPA and defines its core functions, role and responsibilities in promoting sustainable development.
• OPM will be strengthening its policy role and capability in order to lead the formulation of planning and environmental policy. The Policy Unit within OPM will undertake a systematic review of MEPA’s policies with a view to ensure that these are in line with the objectives of this reform.
• Guidelines will move towards a zero tolerance policy for ODZ areas.
• MEPA will develop and publish a compendium of its official policies and formalized procedures that guide its internal processes. This manual should provide clear direction on the interpretation of polices thus ensuring the consistent interpretation of policy by all its officials.

Robert Musumeci’s observations
• In principle, the formulation of a single legal framework which addresses both planning and environmental concerns should be viewed as welcome news. It is however pertinent to point out that development applications may be subject to other pieces of important legislation. For example, section 25 of the the Code of Police Laws provides that it shall not be lawful to leave any building or work which is ruinous or dangerous to persons or to the property of others. At the same time, planning legislation (L.N. 258 of 2002 - Development Planning Act (Cap. 356) Development (Removal of Danger) Order, 2002) places an obligation on the respective owners to obtain prior clearance from MEPA before proceeding with any works relating to the removal of standing danger. Consequently John Citizen asks which legislation prevails?
• Within the context of the reform, it is clear that government is proposing to be the ultimate policy maker. The reform itself contemplates that a Policy Unit is set up within the OPM, which will constantly encourage stakeholders to send feedback on MEPA’s policy instruments which are thought to merit review and improve MEPA’s operations. Although this is perceived as positive, it must be recalled that changes to policy which could affect the investment return of potential developers cannot be made in an unstructured manner because otherwise this would effect the economy of the country and bring about a lot of instability in the economic sphere. The reform should nonetheless highlight that once a Local Plan is approved, its provisions (such as permitted height limitations) shall remain unchanged for a defined period of time, notwithstanding any objections and counter arguments which may reach the Policy Unit in that period. Experience in the past years has shown that a number of applications were turned down as a result of public pressure, even though the respective Local Plan indicated that such applications should have been approved. This has certainly contributed to added uncertainty on potential investors. Yet, the reform still fails to secure that a planning decision is taken in the light of the prevailing polices on the date when the application has been submitted.
• It is only opportune to establish a clear framework in reaction to the environmental sustainability sustained by prevailing development trends in ODZs during recent years. However, it must be stated that the recently approved policy document Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables already poses wide ranging restrictions in ODZ related development – at times to the detriment of genuine agricultural initiatives.

Although it is commendable to develop an approach that secures a clear direction with respect to the interpretation of polices, the problem would not be solved by providing a supporting document (referred as a manual in the proposed reform document). It must be recalled that the majority of applications remain of a subjective nature. Let’s take an example. A small wine bar in Birgu may be considered to generate nuisance by a planning officer (and therefore in conflict with the policies regulating residential nuisance), while another planning official may reason out that a wine bar in Birgu would contribute towards the regeneration of the place (which is in line with government’s priority to regenerate our historic towns). Clearly, individual interpretation does not find comfort in any written document. The solution clearly lies in selecting the right decision makers who can make a judicious assessment.

Next week, MEPAwatch will focus on the proposed changes to the DCC and MEPA Board.

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.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

EDITORIAL

INTERVIEW