MEPA Watch | Sunday, 06 September 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci’s observations on the proposed MEPA reform – part 9

Highlights

Currently, an applicant whose permit is refused by the DCC, has the opportunity to either have his application reconsidered before the same DCC Board or alternatively, may request that his case is heard before the Planning Appeals Board, which essentially acts as an independent quasi judicial body. The choice lies solely with the applicant
Thus, as things stand, the same application can be brought before the same DCC Board members twice through a formal request for reconsideration and consequently handled by the same Board Members.
To date, the DCC is composed of seven officials (chaired by a warranted architect) while the Planning Appeals Board is composed of three members, which alternatively is chaired by a lawyer. From a thorough reading of the proposed reform document, it is alleged that there is a lack of coherence between DCC judgments and those delivered by the Planning Appeals Board.
Consequently, the reform framework aims to address this current shortcoming as follows:

1. Elimination of the reconsideration process, but retaining the option of allowing a single reconsideration related to the conditions of permit only.
2. The establishment of a Planning and Review Tribunal, to replace the current Planning Appeals Board, which is technical in orientation thus granting the applicant with the opportunity of a ‘second DCC’ session.
3. The strengthening of the Appeals process so as to secure an efficient and sound opportunity for redress for applicants, as well as, an increase in the fee for pursuing such appeals in order to make recourse based on the most genuine of cases.
4. Faster processing of evidently non-compliant applications. In such cases, the case officers are to draw up a summary DPAR consisting of the following elements: a. description of proposed development; and b. a list of those policies which the application is in breach of. The summary DPAR would then be forwarded to the responsible DCC. This report would replace the full DPAR sent to the DCC. The DCC would have the discretion to request a full DPAR if it finds merit in the application and disagrees with the judgment of the DPD. This measure ensures that the right for applicants to go through the full development application process is maintained, but enables the DPD to flag its concerns and avoid the wastage of unnecessary resources.

Robert Musumeci’s observations

In theory, one may claim that having an application processed twice by the same DCC is conducive to a situation where the process should yield the same result – for this reason the reform framework is suggesting that the reconsideration process should be abolished. In reality, however, this is hardly ever the case, since architects have the opportunity to negotiate planning solutions only at reconsideration stage. In fact, the majority of practicing architects choose to have their refused cases reconsidered before the same DCC in order to have an opportunity to make verbal submissions in support of their case, considering that during the first DCC hearing one is only allowed to make official verbal representations at the DCC’s discretion.
The elimination of the reconsideration mechanism (where applicants can make verbal submissions before the DCC and negotiate planning solutions) will only serve to channel more applications before the Appeals Board (now Planning and Review Tribunal), at which stage planning solutions cannot be technically negotiated.

Next week MEPAWATCH will focus on the abolishing of Outline Development Permits

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

A warning from employers

---

INTERVIEW


Passion, the ingredient for success