MEPA - who is accountable for what?

Architect Robert Musumeci, chairman of the Building Industry Consultative Council (BICC), argues that in assessing applications planning decisions tied to similar applications cannot be ignored

Since its inception in 1992, the Planning Authority, [eventually the Malta Environment Planning Authority (MEPA), has been the subject of constant public debate. The authority was the reaction to the excesses which took place in the previous decades, when planning decisions were piloted by a government executive with no legal mechanism enabling redress to the ordinary citizen.

MEPA therefore remains the hallmark of modern governance in this country. Planning decisions were delegated to a planning commission and were no longer taken behind closed doors, at the minister's discretion.

On an equally significant note, applicants feeling aggrieved by the authority's decisions were given an unprecedented right to request that their application be reassessed.

At the same time, ordinary citizens could make their representations, along with their objections in reaction to any proposed development. Government, like ordinary citizens, was also rendered subject to established planning procedures, which entitles other parties to file objections in its regard.

In parallel, a Structure Plan was in place to provide the guiding rationale which was to be pursued by the authority. It gave a general policy framework underscored by a set of objectives aimed to sustain economic development without resorting to further urban sprawl, to which end, our development areas have in fact declined by five per cent as a direct result of the enactment of this Plan, while the average urban sprawl in Europe continued to increase by five per cent every 10 years.

During its course, the authority was not spared of major administrative concerns.

One of the major concerns tied to the planning process is bureaucracy, although one must state that the authority has made great leaps in this regard in recent years.

The Development Planning Act has also been modified to limit the time- span, depending on the nature and location of a development, over which an application is to be determined. In this regard, the authority's executive arm, which role includes the processing of applications, should limit its requisites to what is absolutely necessary for the determination of a development application.

On the other hand, the top management should be encouraged, not least the chairman of the authority, to give specific directions to ensure that applications for development are not stifled. Having said that, it is acknowledged that the Development Control Commission (DCC) is approving 90 per cent of development applications on time, even though applicants are more concerned about their application outcome.

At the same time, the Development Notification Framework (which is a fast-track process where applications are processed within a maximum of one month), currently handled by a very able officer, should be widened to include more types of development. Today, this is even more possible, since Local Plans have been formally approved, and therefore one can rely on established guidelines.

Excessive bureaucracy leads to another major concern - inconsistency. To this end, Government has over the years reacted to secure wider transparency in the application process. Not only are all decisions deliberated in public, but boards are, by law, obliged to clearly lay down any supporting reasons cited to justify the overruling of negative recommendations by case officers, which reasons are accessible to the public via the Web.

At the same time, Government is doing its utmost to entice case officers to liaise with applicants and architects during the application process in order to avoid outright refusals. Nevertheless, the success of these efforts remains to be seen.

It is acknowledged that although some progress has been registered in recent weeks, case officers are typically reluctant to depart from established guidelines in the fear of them being eventually slammed by MEPA's own Audit Office for breaching regulations.

In reality, therefore, case officers still tend to take a defensive approach and adhere strictly to the quantitative limitations laid in the policy guidelines. It is for this reason that we still witness an abundance of negative recommendations by case officers, only to be remedied at decision stage. This situation is invariably undermining MEPA's efficiency.

The system should therefore encourage case officers to base their recommendations with more professional judgment, taking full consideration of other past planning decisions governed by similar planning rationale.

Although government could be accused of failing the planning process if it had to interfere in the mechanics of the authority, the public strongly acknowledges that political responsibility demands that any elected government must continue to secure the key direction for the authority.

This also includes the continuous monitoring of the judicious performance of all MEPA officers. Performance should be based not only on the ability to reduce the authority's caseload, but more significantly on the ability of MEPA's personnel to render sound planning judgments driven by a consistent and rational approach.

This can be achieved if case officers are encouraged to base their recommendations on a more professional judgment, taking full cognisance of established planning decisions. In assessing applications, planning decisions tied to similar applications cannot be ignored.

rmperiti@onvol.net

Mr Musumeci is mayor of Siggiewi.