MEPA Watch | Sunday, 26 July 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci observations on the proposed MEPA reform – part 3

Highlights
One of the major changes in the reform concerns the set up of the Development Control Commissions. The salient changes can be summed up as follows:
• Two DCCs operating on a full-time basis, each composed of three members, shall be set up. This setup will replace the current one which comprises three DCC Boards, where each Board is composed of seven members.
• Two different Chairpersons are to be appointed to chair the two DCCs. The Chairpersons would also automatically hold the position of Deputy Chairperson on the MEPA Board.
• DCC members are selected so as to ensure no conflicts of interest. In other words the appointed members cannot engage in any private work, contrary to the present situation.
• The MEPA Chairperson together with DCCs’ Chairmen shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition
• Nominations for members on MEPA Board and DCCs should be scrutinized by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Development Planning
• Technical experts may be commissioned by the Boards/ Commissions at the discretion of the latter to assist on a full-time basis. During such term of employment, the experts would not be allowed to undertake private practice neither.

Robert Musumeci’s observations
At present, the three Development Control Commissions (DCCs) operate on a part-time basis, and the respective members can engage in private business. In other words, architects who are appointed on DCC Boards may still have a private practice, and their applications determined by the same Board on which they sit. This state of affairs has resulted in a negative public perception and the reform is geared to appoint members who cannot engage themselves in private practice.
At face value, it is augured that there would be less criticism being directed at MEPA in view of potential conflict of interest. In a situation where an appointed member is related to a practicing architect criticism however may still prevail, even though such criticism is in my view unjustified. Today another critical situation might ensue, considering the fact that the MEPA Board, which is also entrusted with decision taking, hosts a representative from ENGOs, which certainly have a preset agenda which could translate in a conflicting interest too.
Despite the criticism which has been levied about the inconsistencies in decisions resulting from different decision-making bodies within MEPA, it must be highlighted that the Commissions should not act as the natural extension of the Directorate – in other words, the role of the Commissions is not to merely rubber stamp the recommendations meted out by the Directorate.
The Commissions should retain their prerogative to overrule recommendations made by case officers, since the bulk of negative recommendations are based on policies which are taken out of context, without little, if any, consideration being given to the real circumstances surrounding that application.
The presence of the DCC Chairmen on both the MEPA Board and the DCCs should result in a more coordinated and consistent approach in all facets of MEPA’s decision-making process leading to a sentencing policy. They would be able to transmit the MEPA Board’s policies consistently within the DCCs, and reflect the problems and concerns encountered at this level to a higher authority. Nonetheless, the success of the reform depends highly on the ability of DCC members to make judicious assessments. If the success of the reform is gauged on the DCC members’ inability to overrule recommendations in the name of consistency, the reform will only serve to cast doubts each time a recommendation is overruled due to the counter arguments put forward by the architect on behalf of the client. It certainly must be highlighted that case law suggests that the success of the DCC’s depends entirely on their ability to interpret planning rules and regulations within a context: “L-ezami tar-regoli applikabbli ma jistghux isiru in a vacuum” PAB 143/00 SMS. PA 3749/99. Angelo Cassar kontra l-Kummissjoni ghall- Kontroll ta’ l-Izvilupp.
On an equally significant note, the idea of having the Leader of the Opposition endorsing the appointment of the DCC chairmen augurs very well. In my opinion, all the other members of the Commission should also be endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Next week MEPA watch will focus on the proposed changes to the Appeals 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


Taking the fall

INTERVIEW