MEPA development applications

It is commonly perceived that development control, which falls under the remit of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA), is undermined by excessive bureaucracy, to the detriment of applicants, who consistently claim that development applications take too long to be determined.

In parallel, it is also claimed that the authority lacks a clear policy framework, which in turn is undermining its efficiency.

Contrary to common perceptions, it is correct to state that the majority of development applications are determined within a reasonable timeframe, provided that the request satisfies the pertinent planning policies and regulations for the given location.

When applications do not fully meet the quantitative policy guideline requirements, planning solutions are very often recovered at decision stage following a judicious assessment by the Development Control Commission (DCC).

The Local Plans, which were finalised last August, provide a coherent framework underscored by an array of policies and illustrative maps.

It is uncontested that following the enactment of the plans, applicants have been better guided as to whether a development may be accepted or not.

Having said this, a number of policies remain subject to wide interpretation, and must be assessed in consonance with the overriding objectives of the plan and the specific site circumstances and planning history.

Applications for developments, once submitted, are transmitted to case officers, whose role is to assess whether the request for development satisfies the key direction of the Local Plan governing the specific location.

In parallel, case officers also refer to other supporting design guidelines. Finally, the officer suggests to the DCC whether the development should be granted or rejected.

The commission is therefore delegated to take decisions on applications after taking cognisance of the contents of the report prepared by the case officer. Case law suggests that a significant percentage of decisions taken by the commission are in conflict with the negative recommendations stated by case officers.

Clearly, case officers, on assessing an application, continue to adhere to the quantitative standards laid in the policy guidelines, making no departure from established quantitative standards. Decision bodies have, on their part, demonstrated their ability to secure reasonable judgments, acknowledging the planning material considerations driven by the specific nature of the development and its location.

During recent years, commissions have, without exception, consistently attempted to negotiate solutions with applicants during the decision process, in the knowledge that established standards cannot be interpreted in a vacuum.

The role of the commission has secured an excellent working relationship between the authority and architects. Any delays in the decision-making phase will therefore continue to be justified, since deferral of applications are always underlined by a request on the applicant's part to render a solution acceptable to both MEPA and the applicant.

It is recently being suggested that negotiations at decision stage are to be limited, and negotiations should, instead, take place during assessment stage. At the same time, case officers remain obliged to strictly adhere to the established quantitative standards.

It still remains unclear whether case officers will now be enticed to take cognisance of the planning rationale justifying planning decisions governed by identical planning merits.

In other words, this signifies that unless case officers are not given the green light to base their assessments within a broader framework which allows them to depart from established policies on the basis of already established decisions, there is little scope for negotiation during assessment stage. This will never happen in practice.

Negotiation is taken to mean that two parties with contrasting views are willing to depart from an established standpoint with a view to recover a common acceptable solution. The commission has, so far, been doing a sterling job in this regard, although common perceptions may suggest otherwise. Any attempt on MEPA's part, to limit the commission's prerogative to negotiate with architects during decision phase, with a view to reduce the authority's caseload, will only serve to increase frustration amongst applicants, who in turn are compelled to request that their case be reconsidered through a formal process, and wait for another year. This is certainly not the right time!

Robert Musumeci is also mayor of Siggiewi.

rmperiti@onvol.net