Mepa auditor warning

The procedures adopted by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to approve the local plans lack transparency and may give rise to potential abuse, the watchdog's own auditor, Joseph Falzon, concluded in an internal report.

Investigating a change in policy that led to a "re-zoning" of part of Santa Marija Estate - Mellieha's exclusive area that has been reserved for detached bungalows since 1963 - to allow for the construction of apartment blocks, Mr Falzon concluded that Mepa had failed to consult the public on substantial amendments and additions to the draft local plans after the original drafts were issued for public consultation.

The Mellieha case, which has implications for the entire planning system, goes back to 2001 when Mepa published the draft northwest local plan after a six-week public consultation period.

When the finalised draft plan was published following amendments by the Mepa board and approved by Environment Minister George Pullicino earlier this year, a number of major policy changes and additions that had not appeared in the 2001 draft were noticed.

Santa Marija Estate residents, who could not submit feedback at this stage, noted that a buffer zone between the bungalow area and a high-rise development in an adjacent area known as Is-Sellum had been cleared for relaxation of building heights and higher density development.

An application to build apartments in the same area has since been submitted.

After seeking the version of the Mepa official in charge of the Local Plans Unit, Mr Falzon confirmed the residents' statement that "no further consultation with the public was carried out after the closing date for submissions on the original draft proposals".

Mr Falzon said the audit office had been informed that officials at Mepa's Local Plan Unit, who "were concerned about this issue of public consultation", had sought legal advice and were told that there was no need to undertake additional consultations after the six-week consultation period on the draft plans.

Mr Falzon also pointed out that after the adoption of the Cabinet memorandum on the rationalisation of development boundaries, Mepa had carried out a public consultation exercise. When the proposed boundaries were changed following the "resultant proposals", these were not submitted for public consultation.

In line with the spirit of the Development Planning Act, it was Mepa's duty to make known its policies and what it intends to take into consideration during the preparation of a local plan, Mr Falzon said, pointing out that the period of preparation "is not restricted to the first draft of the local plan".

Irrespective of the legal interpretations, it was important that consultations take place at every stage of the preparation, Mr Falzon added. Indeed, it was his view that the period of "preparation" spanned "the time from initial drafting up to the final approval".

The present procedure, he went on, "can easily lead to suspicions that any person or persons, within the Mepa structure, can omit crucial (and possibly controversial) policies at the initial stage and then include them in the local plan at a later stage, when no further consultation is possible".

"The potential for abuse in accepting the procedures as adopted by Mepa is enormous. This clearly conflicts with both the letter and spirit of the Development Planning Act," Mr Falzon concluded.

In his opinion, "legal provisions should be introduced to ensure consultation at all stages of the preparation or amendment of a local plan".

The audit officer suggested that a legal notice is issued "to specify clearly the duties of Mepa relative to public consultation".

Among other things he proposed that any new policies included in the amended plan should be re-published for consultation and that such consultation should be repeated every time substantial changes are made or when new or proposed deletion of draft policies occur.

This would lengthen the process, Mr Falzon acknowledged, but the local plan drafting process had been going on for over 10 years so Mepa had ample time for public consultation. Moreover, public participation in land use planning was crucial to the democratisation of the planning process. "Adopting procedures which limit or curtail this right is unacceptable," he said.

Mr Falzon said in conclusion that after the preliminary report was finalised and sent to Mepa's chairman for his comments, the audit office had received an e-mail from one of the complainants who made allegations of corruption against unidentified Mepa officers.

"The Audit Office does not have the resources or competence to investigate these types of allegations and has advised the complainant to refer the matter directly to the Commission for the Investigation of Corruption," the auditor said.