Lawrence Gonzi has unveiled the reform of the beleaguered MEPA 15 months since his re-election. But he wants to assume the power to lay down planning policies, determining where and which kind of development can take place. Is this a throwback to the 1980s, or a clever political solution? By JAMES DEBONO
It’s all about the local plans. Want to build a 16-storey skyscraper in the middle of Balzan? You will have to see if it is allowable under the local plan, the guide to planning and development for each of Malta’s localities. And that’s what guides case officers and the members of the dreaded Development Control Commission on deciding whether you get your concrete nightmare.
But Lawrence Gonzi has an idea. As things stand, these local plans – which set parameters such as maximum building heights, types of allowable developments, etc. – can only come into effect if they are rubber-stamped by the ministry responsible for MEPA – until March 2008, the ministry for the environment, which later was split up to give MEPA to the prime minister.
Of course, it is difficult to imagine ministers signing these policy documents without actually having a say in their formulation. It is hard to imagine that such plans do not have in mind future developments that could ‘possibly’ take place in particular areas.
And yet, with Gonzi’s vision of MEPA reform, it will the political arm to be strengthened. The prime minister wants a unit inside the OPM to be responsible for widening or narrowing these goalposts for development applications.
A new phenomenon? Not entirely.
Take 2004, when MEPA was asked by Gonzi to find an adequate site for a golf course. That was a case in which the government took precedence over MEPA by asking it to implement a policy brief.
Or the process leading to the extension of development zones in 2006: that was actually commenced by a Cabinet decision.
Such cases created an ambiguous situation where, after politicians took their decisions, they would pass them on to MEPA which served as a convenient smokescreen to give these decisions a technical façade.
And when MEPA took the initiative to draft policies on specific subjects, a large number of them were never actually given the government’s go-ahead. Ten policy papers – the rulebooks for various public spaces – approved by MEPA’s board, are still awaiting the PM’s approval more than two years since they were drafted. These plans cover a variety of important topics, from high-rise buildings to rules regulating rifle ranges, mineral extraction, conservation of buildings, childcare centres and the dumping of waste at sea.
On the other hand controversial policies like the ‘Policy and Design Guidance for Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables’ were conveniently endorsed right before the last election. This policy was used as the pretext to issue a number of controversial permits – such as the Safi Lidl supermarket, which later led to the resignation en masse of the DCC – right before the 2008 election.
So possibly, the Prime Minister is taking over policy-making just to prevent a repetition of these planning blunders, or those in the 2006 local plans which paved the way to high-rise development right next to the Belvedere landmark in Lija; a decision which MEPA had to reverse after the election after public outrage.
Gonzi takes over policy. Now what?
If he does assume responsibility for policy, it will be the OPM that will be hammering out the parameters for development in the country.
And among the already announced priorities for the new policy unit are political hot potatoes such as development inside outside development zones (ODZ), building height restrictions and revising the 2006 3 3 local plans.
Gonzi says he has already directed the new unit to reflect the government’s political commitment to zero tolerance on ODZ applications.
Thing is, all this could change under a different prime minister, Nationalist or Labour. This new ‘liberty’ may well enable a future government with different priorities to ride roughshod over the environment, by changing policies to accommodate developers.
Had this system been in place when Gonzi seemed obsessed with the idea of developing a golf course, he might well have instructed his subordinates to change policies to accommodate the development.
Surely the reform will simplify matters. For example, the PM will now be held directly accountable for policy decisions. Objectors to policy decisions will be able to point their finger at him.
It will also allow the government to identify national priorities and create the planning policies to make certain types of development possible. Gonzi has already hinted at the need for a policy to create more office space for companies investing in Malta. Whether this results in safeguarding the environment, or its wanton destruction, will depend on the political will of the government of the day.
And although the government will not be interfering in the determination of planning applications, it could find itself paving the way for these developments by changing the goalposts. Because local plans go in great detail of where development can take place or not: and the government might find itself directly embroiled in determining the future of individual applications.
That also means the planning process will also be subjected to electoral pressures.
Take this hot potato to be decided by Gonzi’s new policy unit: whether or not to approve the Marfa Action Plan, a policy that sets the parameters for the rebuilding of the illegal, boathouse shantytown in Armier.
When the plan was issued for public consultation in 2002 it was never approved by the MEPA board. And in view of Gonzi’s pre-electoral promise to intervene with MEPA to facilitate the approval of the boathouse owners’ application to rebuild the shantytown, it is difficult to imagine the new policy unit standing its ground to resist the Armier squatters.
Of course there will be no hiding behind MEPA this time. Gonzi will have to take the full brunt of criticism for such decisions taken by his own office.
Leaner and quicker?
The reform gives MEPA two development control commissions (DCC), made up of three full-time members (rather than part-time as is the case today). The DCC chairmen will both be deputy chairmen on the MEPA board.
Arguably this decreases conflicts of interests. As things stand architects and planners appointed to the DCC end up determining the fate of projects proposed by potential clients. But since the reform does not give any security of tenure to those serving on these boards, they could still face potential conflicts with future clients.
Contrary to what happens at the moment, all parties to the decision, including case officers, will have the chance to submit arguments before the DCC.
The appeals board will be renamed the Planning and Review Tribunal, function on a full-time basis, and chaired by an expert in planning and environmental policy. It will have the right to stop a development – contrary to the present scenario – when an appeal is presented by third parties in sensitive cases that are ODZ, special areas of conservation or scheduled properties.
For example, controversial ODZ developments like the Nadur cemetery were allowed to go ahead despite an appeal by objectors. If the development is turned down, the developers will be asked to restore the site to its natural state but this could prove impossible because of excavations already conducted on site.
The new reform however will spare such sites from destruction before a final decision is taken by MEPA.
The reform also encourages developers to collaborate with MEPA, to ensure that their applications abide to planning policies. This will require a massive culture change in MEPA.
Using the carrot and stick approach, developers who submit their applications to a new pre-application screening process will be offered a fast-track path by having their applications determined in 12 or 26 weeks. By submitting themselves to screening, both MEPA and developers will be spared from wasting time on applications which are clearly in breach of policy.
MEPA will also have the onerous task of determining which applications will be determined in 12 weeks because they are considered “straightforward” and which applications will be determined in 26 weeks because they are considered “complex”.
Another positive aspect of the reform is that developers will need the written consent of landowners before applying for a development on their land. As things stand at present one may well apply to construct a penthouse on Castille, without first seeking the Prime Minister’s own permission!
EIA conflicts
One major shortcoming of the reform is that Environmental Impact Assessment consultants will still be hired by the developers, again raising a potential conflict.
That’s because EIA consultants should be expected to guide MEPA with sound scientific judgement. Instead they will still remain on the developer’s payroll.
Consider that only 19 out of 103 projects that required an EIA were turned down by the MEPA board since 1995. That could well be an indication that some EIAs are biased in the developers’ favour.
Instead the reform tries to address this problem by giving MEPA the power to appoint independent consultants to vet the work of the consultants appointed by the developer. And ten years since it was first proposed, MEPA will also have an EIA consultants register from which abusers will be struck off if they mislead MEPA with incorrect information in the EIAs.
Castille’s new policy unit will be empowered to act as an arbitrator between developers and MEPA when they disagree on the terms of reference which set the issues to be addressed in the EIA. This could once again raise the spectre of political intervention in the planning process.
Co-opting civil society
This reform will appoint one of the eight independent MEPA board members to “represent civil society” while another member has to be a cultural heritage expert. But both will be chosen by the government.
The Prime Minister might well be using this bait to co-opt NGOs by offering them a place on the decision-making process and slowly soften them.
Even the act that it will be Gonzi to appoint an NGO representative, might well divide the NGO movement between the co-opted moderates and those who are left out of the process.
The government had already appointed Nature Trust president Vince Attard to serve in the MEPA board in 2007, when he was party to a decision in the pre-electoral sanctioning of boathouses in Dwejra. Attard ended up resigning not much later.
Officials of NGOs themselves can have a conflict of interest if the organisations they represent object to a particular development discussed at board level. The promise of a seat on the board may well be a poisoned chalice for those accepting it.
Angelo Xuereb, developer
The reform is a move in the right direction but I really hope that the proposals are implemented. They look nice on paper but implementing them is another matter. I am satisfied to see that the reform process is intended to make the process more efficient at MEPA, an issue that is crucial for any reform, as some applications, including mine have been pending for almost 15 years or more, and that is unfair.
I agree on the full-time engagement of DCC members, however those appointed on this board must be technical and not just appointed without having any knowledge on development.
Government must take the crucial decision on what is to happen with all the pending applications. People like me have had applications pending for years without decision, and I strongly believe that justice should be done with all who like me have suffered the injustice of being put into a limbo, with massive costs. Before any reform is implemented, MEPA must get rid of its pending applications.
Andrew Vinci, architect
I don’t feel that the MEPA reform proposals will bring about the huge change that perhaps most were hoping for. The reform seems mostly geared towards creating a more efficient process that will not necessarily result in a better built environment. Having full-time members on the DCC board may speed up applications but will detach the DCC further from the ‘real world’; in fact, it may have been healthy keeping the divide between DCC board members and other MEPA employees.
I agree with the removal of Outline Development Applications that left many disillusioned when it came to the subsequent Full Development Application. There is a visible effort in trying to increase the communication between the applicant and MEPA which can be seen as positive and the process of notification although at first may seem to be intrusive, but indeed it may help have controversial projects go unnoticed.
In my opinion, the biggest issue the goverment still has to address is the normalising of the ‘two weights, two measures’ discrimination that well-meaning common applicants and architects have to face on a daily basis.
Vince Attard, Nature Trust
Nature Trust (Malta) is still looking into what exactly was proposed. At first glance, it seems not a bad proposal, but we still need to dig deeper into the proposal to be able to comment on it. There are good points proposed, while others are still of concern to us, like for example the EIA consultants registry – as this will ensure competent people doing the EIAs, and the promised zero tolerance to ODZ applications.
On the negative side, government still needs to clarify whether or not will there be a time period where an application will know if it can get a permit? What power will enforcement have and will it be exclusively on development? Or will enforcement act on habitat destruction?
We also ask what will be the role of the Environment Directorate now, and will it be beefed up? What weighting will the Environment Directorate have in the decision process, if any, and why is there one environmentalist on the MEPA board when boards have a lot of architects? Should it not be equal so as to have the environment and planning on an equal weighing?
Finally the biggest concern is if the power will be going to OPM now. That is, can OPM declare a site that was for example and area of high ecological value as an area for development?
Astrid Vella, coordinator, FAA
The FAA considers that many of the proposals submitted by the various organisations consulted, which were incorporated in the document, are positive, while others need further thought and discussion.
The FAA has reservations regarding certain aspects, particularly the appeals process which, in taking a legalistic rather than a planning approach, has served to undermine many of the beneficial provisions established by the MEPA Directorate. We are also concerned about the outcome of applications which are already being processed. If the new regulations will not apply to these projects, we will be facing the damaging results of the present flawed system for years to come.
Given the breadth of the reform and the long-term implications of any planning regulation each proposal will have to be studied in depth before FAA is in a position to issue a formal response.
The notification of residents and the appointment of full-time DCC boards are major steps in the right direction. However, the success of any committee or board depends on the qualities – personal and professional – of those appointed as members, and for that reason we would remind the authorities of their promise to hold consultations in respect of appointments to the various boards.
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
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
