The provision of two opportunities of redress has significant implications on Mepa's resources, both financial and human. Having an application processed twice by the same DCC could result in inefficiencies in terms of the deployment of resources to a process which, in the main, would yield the same result, as well as, creating duplicate redress channels undermining its efficiency. Reconsiderations are believed to be currently used as a means to take another chance to obtain the approval denied in the first instance and which, if not granted, is often moved to the appeals process. Many a time have efforts been made to lower the number of cases referred for reconsideration. Notwithstanding the positive efforts embarked upon in this respect, similar attitudes prevail. It is, therefore, envisaged to model the system on judicial practice wherein a case is referred to the first decision-making body (in the planning case the DCC) after which the applicant would have a fixed period of time in which to lodge an appeal. In consonance with the emphasis on enhanced efficiency, the reform will thus see the elimination of the reconsiderations process save for cases related to conditions of permit. This will be coupled by a strengthening of the appeals process, so as to secure an efficient and sound opportunity for redress for applicants, as well as, an increase in the fee for pursuing such appeals in order to make recourse based on the most genuine of cases. It is felt that with increased dialogue between the applicant and his architect and the case officer, the planning process will become more robust and transparent offering the possibility for the elimination of reconsiderations and freeing up current resources which will be deployed to strengthen the remodelled planning process.
Faster processing of evidently non-compliant applications
Significant resources are taken up in processing of applications that are evidently non starters in terms of Mepa's policies. Case officers assigned to these particular applications are currently formulating a full-blown DPAR even though it would be evident that these applications would be refused by the respective DCC.
This implies that resources are being wasted at various stages in the development application process - case officer processing, DCC session etc. The reform will therefore seek to minimise such efficiency losses.
In order to maximise the use and worth of Mepa's resources, the government will be instructing Mepa to allow applications which constitute obvious gross infringements to current planning policy to be assessed in a fast-track method that would allow a summary DPAR to be prepared in which the obvious discrepancies vis-à-vis planning policy would be listed together with the reasons for their non-conformity. This report would replace the full DPAR sent to the DCC. The DCC would have the discretion to request a full DPAR if it finds merit in the application and disagrees with the judgment of the DPD.
This measure ensures that the right for applicants to go through the full development application process is maintained, but enables the DPD to flag its concerns and avoid the wastage of unnecessary resources.
In adopting such a procedure, Mepa will be asked to develop criteria for such cases and to draw up a standard template for the summary DPAR which is to be prepared. This will be made public and issued for consultation prior to entering into force.
Outline development permits
Outline development permits are a means wherein potential developers would "sound out" Mepa on the feasibility of a particular development without having to engage in the full set of studies that would have otherwise been required under the full application procedure albeit remain subject to those studies should the application be upgraded from an outline to a full development status.
The government believes that in order to continue stimulating and encouraging investment, it is important that Mepa provides an indicative direction as to whether a particular development would be approved in principle on the basis of general parameters such as siting, scale and type of development. Notwithstanding, the government believes that in the current system Mepa is committing itself to granting a permit at a stage in which many of the details about a development are not yet known. In addition, such a right is being provided for an unlimited timeframe. Moreover, the nature of an outline development application was to enable applicants to assess the likelihood of a development securing approval without entering into all the studies in vain. It was never the intention for an outline development application to be used as some form of permit which can be traded with the property in question.
The current outline development application mechanism has clear advantages for applicants. Although these outline development permits are granted for five years, they are usually renewed if an application for a renewal is requested before the expiry of five years. During such time, land use priorities might change; Mepa needs to have the flexibility and discretion to grant planning permits according to the circumstances prevailing at a particular moment in time.
The government will introduce a system wherein an applicant will be able to hold discussions with the directors of planning and environment and respective unit managers in order to formulate and agree to a planning and environmental brief. Each applicant will have a number of "free" hours with additional meetings scheduled being charged to the client, similarly to the system proposed for full development applications. This process is more resource intensive and will hence carry a higher administrative fee and subsequently a number of hours of consultation fees over and above an established minimum. The development of the brief should be targeted not to exceed a period of 12 months from the date of commencement of discussions.
This brief would be drawn on the basis of a set of parameters characterising the proposed development such as siting, scale, layout and any other parameter deemed appropriate by the directors' team. During these discussions, Mepa will also assign a validity date by which the applicant would need to submit a full development application. Should the applicant fail to submit the application within these timeframes, the brief would become invalid. The validity date will be established on a case by case basis. However, it shall not exceed a period of three years.
Reforming the EIA process
As the competent authority on EIAs, Mepa is responsible for managing the EIA process. An EIA is an assessment tool evaluating the expected environmental impacts of a project. It provides Mepa with the necessary detail about a proposed development for the Mepa board to decide on a project and if the project is approved, impose mitigating measures in line with the EIA.
From an applicant's perspective, an EIA represents an additional cost, in terms of fees paid to commission the EIA to consultants and delays to the initiation of a project, as well as, another hurdle to development. On the other hand, it is Mepa's responsibility to ensure that applications granted lead to development which is sustainable and do not have adverse effects on the environment. The EIA process has not been without controversy with claims that it is often skewed in favour of the applicant who is financing the study and that it is more onerous than minimum international requirements which make it a more expensive process for applicants.
It is in cognisance of such perspectives that the government is proposing certain measures as part of this reform geared towards making the EIA process more efficient, transparent and removing any unnecessary hurdles for applicants. At the same time, the government is also adopting measures that safeguard the process from undue biases.
In order to further streamline the EIA process, the EIA regulations, hereinafter referred to as the regulations, transposing Council Directive 85/337/EEC, will be amended to, among others, include the terms of reference provided by the directive in order to provide a level of definitive guidance to prospective applicants and their consultants. Moreover, the regulations will also make provisions for the introduction of a formal scoping stage which, albeit voluntary, may assist applicants and their consultants to develop more appropriately the said terms of reference to cater for a 360 degree assessment of the impacts on the environment thereby securing a holistic EIA.
The potential irreversibility of negative impacts on the environment merits more attention and precaution. It is in this context, that the government feels the need to take a more cautious stance on EIAs and strengthen Mepa's quality assurance role in the EIA process, as well as favouring stricter monitoring of the impact predictions made in EIAs.
Mepa will publish a set of EIA guidelines aimed at providing assistance to applicants and EIA consultants. This document will provide guidance on the stages of the EIA process, content of the environment impact statement, consultation practices, and the roles of participants in the EIA process.
The development of the EIA guidelines is intended to provide detailed guidance to EIA consultants and other participants in the EIA process on the approach to be adopted and the level of assessment and probing required. The guidelines will amplify on the standard terms of reference which will be provided in the regulations and describe methodologies that can be used in the various stages of the preparation of an EIA.
It is envisaged that for certain developments, the standard terms of reference together with the EIA guidelines may suffice to compile an EIA without seeking formal scoping from Mepa. Notwithstanding, for developments with a level of complexity, applicants will be encouraged to seek Mepa's input and opt for a formal scoping stage so as to ensure that the EIA is complete and meets Mepa's requirements. The introduction of a scoping stage will allow Mepa to amplify the standard terms of reference to better reflect the particular characteristics of the project undergoing evaluation.
Another significant change that will be introduced in the EIA process is the additional accountability expected of consultants. The consultation process throughout the EIA will be the responsibility of the consultants who will be expected to demonstrate the level of consultation carried out and to present the results obtained from such consultation. Moreover, during the Mepa board hearing, it shall be the responsibility of the EIA consultant/s to provide an exposition of the EIA and to answer any questions related to their work. Moreover, the EIA unit within the EPD shall further its efforts to provide a comprehensive critique of the EIAs submitted to Mepa with a view to provide the board with a comprehensive assessment and enable it to make an informed decision for development consent.
As with any professional service, accountability is of the utmost essence. EIAs are seen by the government to be an accurate predictive tool which can give a true and likely picture of the impact of a particular development.
Furthermore, the EIA consultants shall propose to Mepa a set of indicators against which measurement of predicted impacts can be undertaken during and after the execution of the project. These indicators, which will have to be endorsed by Mepa, will be measured by independent consultants who will be commissioned, at the applicant's expense, to carry out independent monitoring. The accuracy of predictions will also serve as an input to the register of EIA consultants.