With the expected Mepa reform, do we need planning professionals?

For many, planning means Mepa. This is simplistically equated to development permits, meaning profit or environmental damage, depending on which side of the fence one stands. Planning is much more than this.

Planning as a profession emerged in the UK after World War II. Initially dominated by architects, it focused on the physical aspects of development. However, it was soon realised that economic and social aspects had to be taken into consideration. The concept eventually encompassed groups of buildings, localities, towns and even regions. The emphasis at each level is different, from the short-term specific to the long-term strategic. In the last two decades, the environmental aspect of planning gained importance.

Planning is essentially a balancing act between these factors. It does not necessarily mean striving for the middle route, as this might disappoint everyone involved. It means considering all aspects while giving priority to the most important factor related to the particular location or to point in time when a decision is taken. Consideration to implementation must also be given, as this influences a particular aspect that needs to be given priority.

In Malta, planning is dominated by Mepa to the extent that the two have become synonymous. Over the years, Mepa has been involved in a number of controversial decisions. These are usually followed by a public outcry. There is then an attempt to carry out changes in the organisation. The trouble is that this process will repeat itself just as long as the changes are carried out in a piecemeal fashion.

This is not to say that Mepa does not need to be reformed.

The argument is that we need to look beyond Mepa as an organisation and think more on the totality of it all as a planning system. Good planning can only result from teamwork, with all players contributing their individual input. Today we have a prima donna of planning accompanied by a weak chorus. How can we expect to have a first class production? We need to create a planning system that diffuses planning into most organisations, including most public and private entities, at decision-making and decision-taking levels.

This would entail the availability of planning professionals to give their input into such organisations. It implies a better planning education system and the recognition of the planning profession, with all its rights and obligations. Hence, any Mepa reform, rather than just taking a short-term view, also needs to take account of the long-term perspective. In the short-term scenario, the most logical solution is to reform Mepa. What would such a reform entail?

We should be questioning the merger between planning and environmental aspects. Planning encompasses many disciplines, while an environment authority must be focused. With the present set-up, both aspects are negatively influencing each other - planning is perhaps too environmentally focused at directorate level, and economically focused at board level. In addition, the social focus is sorely missing.

The internal procedures at the Planning Directorate need to be sorted out. The organisational culture needs to change - from bureaucratic to a planning results-oriented culture. More audit procedures are needed to increase the transparency of the organisation.

One cannot continue to allow a situation where applications are treated as if they are objects produced in a factory, where numbers count most, where consultations are an excuse to delay the process, where officers are unreachable, and where you either do what the officers say or else a refusal is recommended. These things do happen.

Board formation needs to be revised. How can anyone representing a specific interest group take an impartial planning decision? Such decisions are biased towards the representing organisation. Furthermore, can someone who is not knowledgeable on planning decide on planning issues?

Any Mepa reform would need to include short-term and long-term measures. This reform must start immediately if it is to be effective. It requires the involvement of planning professionals. Are we going to take up the challenge?

Architect Vincent Magri is specialised in Land Use Planning. He has worked in planning since 1988, both as part of the Planning Directorate in the early days of planning in Malta and in the private sector. He currently forms part of the team at Mangion, Mangion and Partners.

vmagri@mmp.com.mt