The dynamics of Maltese planning: delivering a fundamental change

Before the enactment of the Development Planning Act, pioneered in the early Nineties, there was no integrated system in the approach to structured planning in Malta.

The Nationalist administration of the time inherited a situation, in the wake of unchecked urban sprawls, where the release of land was not shaped by actual needs. Planning decisions at the time were taken by the minister, applications were not subject to any public access, let alone open to public objection and the expression of concern.

The Planning Authority was set up in the early 1990s - this was a timely move since it stopped the deterioration of our natural habitat after politicians and public interest groups had long voiced their concern.

Five years down the road, the need to re-engineer the strategic operation of the PA, which was manifestly driven by public opinion, led to a marked reform undertaken by the 1998-2003 Nationalist government to bring about quicker and more predictable and transparent decisions.

Concerted rationale has dictated the amalgamation of the Environmental Protection Department and the Planning Authority, now known as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA). A very user-friendly Website provided unprecedented access to planning information, including past decisions which could affect one's case.

The infamous regulations embedded in DC1/88 were overhauled by elaborate illustrative guidelines contained in a new document termed Policy Guidance 2000.

The setting up of three Deve-lopment Control Commissions has remarkably speeded up the application process, and the selection of a newly appointed Director of Planning and the posting of a Director General to head all operations resulted in a more appropriate framework that supports greater clarity and focus in strategic planning for the Maltese Islands at all levels.

The strategic framework of MEPA affords the promotion of the concept of a plan-led system of development control, however calling for a further simplification of the hierarchy including a reduction in the number of tiers.

Greater clarity would result in more consistent, understandable decisions and would enable business and industry to function with greater certainty.

To this end, the need to update policies stands out and we must ensure that policies are not only updated, but remain succinct and focused, current, appropriate and relevant.

Above all, however, emerging policies and changes must be consistent with other strategies and national processes, including the rationale emerging from recurrent DCC and Appeals decisions.

Of course, this can be achieved most effectively through the incorporation of broad policy principles into our Local Plans, supplemented by more specific reference at planning consent stage only where interpretation of these principles needs clarification.

Although the need to avoid inconsistencies in the planning process and to provide clear frameworks within which decisions can be made remains pertinent, the unfair criticism levelled at the DCC or Appeals Board decisions which run counter to case officers' recom-mendations is largely unwarranted.

One must constantly realise that decisions which run counter to recommendations are in the main informed by local needs, knowledge and circumstances which are not taken into account during the stages of recommendation, since case officers must strictly adhere to a policy checklist, based on a policy framework whose style at times is wordy, repetitive and confusingly structured and - more serious than that - much of our planning policies are not conducive to the real economic and social patterns.

In the absence of updated policies, the DCC and the Appeals Board should set the norm for such matters. Moreover, the reasons for deviating from recommendations should be made public as part of an active transparent and accountable planning process.

The DCC should interpret specific policies which very often offer a vague interpretation. This is the only way to guarantee a significant degree of sensibility, given the potential for diversity stemming from varied development applications.

The DCC should find mutually acceptable solutions to potential problems and ensure greater transparency by giving due consideration to the rationale behind other planning applications of a similar nature, objections, decisions and appeal processes, affording a more stringent delivery and greater certainty.

On a different front, the objective of involving local government has marked a milestone in our planning system. Local councils' direct involvement in the preparation of local plans remains crucial and their role should not be limited to consultation, but should extend at both the strategic and consent level.

That having been said, we should strive to instil continuing training of councillors in planning law, defining responsibilities, case-law, procedural frameworks as well as training related to deve-lopment planning such as social, demographic and environmental aspects.

This training should address not only the detail of the planning process itself, but should also embrace awareness training of key technical issues so that local councillors are better placed in submitting their advice.

It is also appropriate that planning fees reflect the true cost of development control, both direct and indirect. In return MEPA should demonstrate good cost control and value for money in managing the planning process.

Greater transparency of service delivery and cost control, perhaps including benchmarking of planning authorities, would enable direct customers and other stakeholders to hold MEPA to account.

Besides, a greater strategic focus would appear to offer better prospects in the future if we are set with clearer and coherent planning frameworks in which business and communities can operate. Mapping and zoning of local areas, once the Local Plans are enacted, will be the key to easy and consistent interpretation of these frameworks.

Ideally, in a bid to save time and MEPA resources, proposals for development adhering to the provisions in Local Plans should be granted over the counter with little further consideration.

For example, an application for a local shop where the Local Plan specifically permits such develop-ment should be endorsed outright without the need to resort to the normal bureaucratic process, provided all limitations and constraints are met.

The same should apply to any other proposal which tallies fully with the provisions in the Local Plans for a specific site, and where the onus and responsibility can immediately be taken up by the responsible architect and civil engineer.

Although sustainability appraisal should be at the core of the planning process, social justice should take an equal, if not a bolder, lead. To date, we have witnessed countless situations which give rise to direct conflicts - it is high time that the strategic objectives of the Structure Plan are remoulded to acknowledge a fairer social treatment.

It is therefore essential to maintain a strong social link in setting out the overall direction and concerns for planning matters. This will provide a fair context which our society needs in pursuing equal development opportunities throughout Malta.

On the economic front, planning procedures should be simplified and made less onerous for low impact, innovative and highly internationally competitive enterprise where rapid responses to evolving markets are needed.

It will therefore be essential to designate such zones in areas where there environmental and social risks are low, and restrict their use to enterprises which themselves pose low environmental, economic or social risks.

Recognising the resourcing issues facing both MEPA and the Maltese community at large in a social and economic context is the long way ahead.