Can law save green maiden?

So she'd trusted him, she told the judge. For 15 years she cooked his meals and babysat his dog. He'd use her phone, watch her TV and then take off on his many commitments. A month ago she discovered what his commitments consisted of: wining and dining fresh model material.

The judge asked: what did the maiden want the court to do about the matter? To proclaim the scoundrel guilty of breaking his commitments to her. The judge cleared his throat and proclaimed the maiden had good reason to feel aggrieved. But, he enquired, was there a formal contract of any kind? "No", she replied, puzzled.

"Then I'm afraid there are no legal grounds on which to find this despicable man guilty. The court is here to uphold the law. In the eyes of the law, declarations of good intent, however grand, are worthless."

If you're feeling outraged at the injustice suffered by this maiden, you should, because she represents you, me, and Malta's countryside.

The other protagonists in this fable are the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and the law.

For 15 years we'd trusted Mepa. Things started off well - the authority wrote a whole book of promises to respect the environment. It called it the Malta Structure Plan.

The policies in the Structure Plan couldn't be more sensitive to Malta's scarce countryside. For instance, one policy states that, outside the development zone (ODZ), Mepa will only permit a restricted list of mostly agricultural developments.

To provide flexibility, another policy says that Mepa may consider an application for an ODZ development not permitted by the Structure Plan, only if the applicant submits valid evidence justifying why the proposed development cannot be located in development areas. Reasonable enough - such developments are bound to be few and far between anyway.

But, like the maiden in the fable, our countryside has been betrayed. Mepa's go-ahead to a supermarket outside Safi and for a nightclub in Mistra are two examples of permits given for ODZ developments not permitted by the Structure Plan policies.

These two may well be only the tip of iceberg. In the past three years Mepa approved over 2,500 ODZ permits. The authority's own case officers had recommended that half of these be refused because they contravened planning policies. The Mepa Auditor expressed his concern. He also expressed regret that his office lacks the resources required to investigate the proliferations of ODZ developments.

How can Mepa trample upon its planning policies with impunity? The answer is in what the judge told the betrayed maiden: if it's not in the law, then it has no clout. Policies and plans carry as much legal weight as declarations of love. And you, me and the environment end up empty handed.

For this reason, the Mepa Auditor has concluded that the Safi supermarket permit cannot be revoked. Luckily, the outline development permit for the Mistra club may be revoked - not because of the policies it breaks, but because the site happens to be in an area which is subject to a legal regulation.

Every fable has its moral, and our maiden's is no exception. It clearly shows that if you want protection you must get it from the law, not mere policy declarations.

Lawrence Gonzi and his round table recently proposed various amendments aimed at strengthening the Development Planning Act (DPA). Unfortunately, these do not give any legislative clout to critical planning policies, particularly ODZ policies.

What provisions are needed to ensure that Mepa upholds ODZ policies when processing ODZ development applications? Ones that stipulate that before considering an ODZ application, Mepa must first check whether the Structure Plan allows the proposed development. If it doesn't, the application should be thrown out there and then, unless the applicant submits convincing evidence that the development cannot be sited in a built-up area, as required by the Structure Plan.

And if the applicant does submit such evidence, Mepa should then be legally required to pass the application on to Cabinet for a final decision. This should ensure that only projects of genuine national importance get sited in ODZ areas.

Making this preliminary screening process a legal requirement will help make Mepa's application processing system more consistent and credible.

Moreover, if the authority's boards grant any ODZ permits that do not comply with the processing procedure entrenched in the law, these may be declared legally invalid and hence may be revoked.

Another new provision should oblige Mepa to keep a public register of the ODZ permits granted. This should describe each permitted ODZ development, whether it is allowed by the Structure Plan and, if not, what grounds justified contravening ODZ planning policies.

The authority should be required to publish these ODZ permit details on a yearly basis, for example, as an appendix to Mepa's annual report. In this way, it will show it is honouring its ODZ vows. Or, in political jargon, it will become more transparent and accountable to the public.