Robert Musumeci’s observations on the proposed MEPA reform – part 5
Highlights One of the main aims of the reform is to modify the current framework regulating application procedures. In fact, the reform aims to address the current shortcomings as follows:
•An initial screening process will be introduced which will enable the applicant (and client architect) to hold discussions with the Unit Manager prior to the submission of an application. •Case officers will be encouraged to hold meetings with applicants, who have submitted their application, during the Development Planning Application Report (DPAR) formulation stage.
•An application will be validated only when all the required documentation, studies and collateral have been submitted to the Authority by the applicant or his architect.
•Upon submission of an application, the architect and his client will be given a tracking number which will continue to identify an application until it is validated where it will be given what is today known as the ‘PA number’. Upon submission, the consultation notices to Government departments and agencies will be issued and the technical and administrative screening will be undertaken. Any anomalies will be communicated to both the architect and the applicant such that all parties are informed and be held responsible as to the actions that need to be taken.
•At the initial screening stage, the Unit Manager would screen the application and classify it as either straightforward or complex. As a second step, the Unit Manager would also advise the applicant on potential amendments that could be made so as to render the application straightforward and thus for it be processed in a shorter timeframe. The screening process is voluntary, and is aimed to assist the applicant in arriving at a solution which respects prevailing policy.
•Applicants who opt for the screening process and develop an application which is in line with such policies will obviously go down the straightforward route during the processing stage.
•Applicants who insist to submit applications where the applicable policies are contentious will go down the complex route during the processing stage.
•The meetings between the applicant or architect and the case officer are to be minuted and included as collateral material to accompany the DPAR to be presented to the DCC so as to demonstrate the extent of dialogue achieved and the modus operandi that was employed during the process.
•The current practice wherein the case officer sends the final DPAR to the client’s architect allowing 30 days for his feedback, prior to submission to the DCC, will be maintained. The architect’s comments to the DPAR would also be included as collateral material to be presented to the DCC provide for a better dialogue between the case officer, the applicant and the architect.
•When an application is submitted for the approval of the DCC, the presence of the applicant and architect should be maintained. Notwithstanding, negotiation between the applicant and the DCC will be forbidden – the applicant’s (and architect’s) role is to be limited to presenting the proposed development or to provide clarifications if so required by the DCC.
•The DCC must provide and document the justification of its decision when it is contrary to the recommendations of the case officer.
Robert Musumeci’s observations These changes are based on the basic understanding that an enhanced dialogue between the applicant/architect and the case officer will mitigate against the need of such discussions at DCC level. However, if this pretext fails, the proposed changes will only serve to complicate the status quo.
In the past years, there have been several attempts to shift negotiations away from the DCC, and promote the idea that such negotiations should be held between applicants and case officers. However, all practicing architects can confirm that these attempts failed miserably for one simple reason. Case officers maintain that planning guidelines should be followed to the letter. In simple terms, the role of case officers has been reduced to a simple checklist, insisting that an application should be refused each time a proposal violates any of MEPA’s policies. Straightforward applications do not necessitate any negotiations while complex application (that is the one which require to be negotiated) do not satisfy all policy requirements. However the proposed reform suggests and implicates in no unclear terms that in actual fact even when an application does not abide by the existing policies ad unguem this application could still be approved should the case officer give his recommendation. Nonetheless, no case officer in his right mindset would be willing to negotiate planning solutions in the prior knowledge that he might be censored by the Planning Auditor!
In the circumstances, one can state with certainty that case officers will remain reluctant to negotiate any matter which runs in conflict with established policies. At the same time, if negotiation between the applicant and the DCC will be forbidden, it simply means that the reform will only result in an increased number of refusals being issued in a more efficient manner. This means that the principle of natural justice audi alteram parte would not be entertained, since the applicant would not be in a position to plead before the DCC. Certainly, this is not the aim of a reformed Authority and undoubtedly does not augur well!
The way forward is to preserve the status quo and ensure that the role of politically appointed decision makers (who in my view should also be endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition) should be asked to substantiate their decisions when it is contrary to the recommendations of the case officer. This would also make much sense should the applicant want to present an appeal from the decision in that he would be better guided.
Next week – The participation of third parties as contemplated in the proposed reform
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.
•Case officers will be encouraged to hold meetings with applicants, who have submitted their application, during the Development Planning Application Report (DPAR) formulation stage.
