Final stages of development applications

A second set of measures targeted towards improving the dialogue between Mepa and applicants involve the final stages of the development application process. When an application is submitted for the approval of the DCC, the applicant and appointed architect are present at the session in order to defend their application. However, there is no one from the DPD in order to support and defend the DPAR. The government believes that, in order to have a more balanced and equitable process, the presence of the DPD during the DCC session is crucial. Although this might be seen as creating an additional workload on DPD staff, it is considered essential in order to give the applicant and interested stakeholders a fair hearing. All efforts will be made to introduce a scheduling system that will permit the aggregation of applications in a manner that is conducive to the schedule and workload of the representatives of the DPD who are to attend such sessions.

In line with increased transparency being promoted as part of this reform, the presence of the applicant and architect is seen as good practice and should therefore be maintained. Notwithstanding, clear parameters governing the behaviour of these parties need to be enforced. Negotiation between the applicant and the DCC will be forbidden; the applicant's (and architect) role is to be limited to presenting the proposed development or to provide clarifications if so required by the DCC. It is envisaged that the enhanced dialogue between the applicant/architect and the case officer will mitigate against the need of such discussions at DCC level.

The DCC, on the premise that it has received a DPAR which is comprehensively prepared, and on which a decision may be arrived at, can arrive at a decision during the first meeting. Deferrals should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The DCC must provide and document the justification of its decision when it is contrary to the recommendations of the DPD.

For the purposes of applications decided by the Mepa board which essentially include major projects accompanied by an EIA, the current practice whereby the applicant, architect and case officer are present, is to be maintained. The consultant, responsible for the formulation of the EIA, should also be present for this session in order to present the EIA and to respond to comments generated thereto. Representation of all parties involved in DCCs or Mepa Board sessions ensure greater accountability.

Facilitating the participation of interested third parties

Dialogue between case officers and objectors to a particular development will be encouraged so as to secure a holistic inclusion of all stakeholders involved in the development process. Mepa will be proactive in taking steps geared towards resolving any objections or disputes in respect of a particular application during the initial stages of the application process. To this end, case officers will be encouraged to take the initiative, where they deem necessary, to meet with interested third parties who have registered complaints in respect of a particular proposed development and to document such meetings as part of the notes to committee presented. The case officers would identify whether the complaint is relevant in terms of having grounds in respect of Mepa established policies. If the concerns put forward involve issues which are fully in line with Mepa policy, then Mepa will explain to the objectors that such complaint has no grounds and would thus be ruled against by both the DCC and appeals processes.

Furthermore, the government will facilitate the provision of submissions of interest by third parties in line with its efforts to promote the participation of affected stakeholders in the planning application process. The government will include legal provisions in the new legislative instrument in order to further facilitate the submission of interest by third party objectors. These include:

• extending the timeframe allowed for submission of interest by third parties from 15 to 20 working days;

• allowing interested third parties to effect their submissions by hand, post or electronically; and

• extending the deadline for submissions to the next working day if the deadline falls on a public holiday or a day when Mepa is closed for the public.

In addition to the aforementioned amendments, the new legislative instrument will also include provisions outlining the conditions under which Mepa will consider such submissions, namely that parties provide a justification on planning grounds; the representations are bona fide and not intended to just delay the processing of the application; and the DPAR has not been finalised.

In its efforts to enhance the transparency of the policy-making process, the government will enhance the public consultation procedures currently in place in relation to subsidiary plans including local plans.

At present, Article 27 of the DPA allows for a consultation period of at least six weeks on new subsidiary plans and/or revisions to such plans.

Government will make provisions requiring Mepa to conduct another consultation process of six weeks when, following the public consultation, Mepa intends to make further changes to subsidiary plans over and above the amendments it has made as a result of the representations it had received during the first six-week consultation period.

Enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the appeals process

The planning appeals board is currently constituted as a judiciary body; it is chaired by a lawyer and composed of two other members: A technical person with planning expertise and another member appointed by the President of Malta.

On its part, the overnment intends to reform the appeals process in order for it to constitute a technical review mechanism, comparable in nature and expertise to the DCCs. In order to achieve this, it is proposed that the tribunal be chaired by a person versed in planning and environment, assisted by a lawyer and a warranted architect as its two other members. In order to contribute towards the efficiency of this process and in the light of the proposed elimination of the reconsiderations process, it is thought that, for the foreseeable future, this tribunal would be recruited on a full-time basis.

It must be borne in mind that the appeals process should assess the decision-making process adopted by the DCC or Mepa Board in arriving at its decision ensuring that the spirit of the planning process and the planning forma mentis remains firmly respected and not confused with case law as applicable in the civil, commercial and criminal courts. It is thought that the proposed composition will ensure such consistency in approach between the DCCs and the appeals process.

It is further proposed that the fee charged to applicants who lodge an appeal be increased in order to finance an improved appeals process. This increase in fees is intended to cover for the additional costs which will be incurred by the government to provide for a more efficient and professional service, as well as, to act as a disincentive for applicants seeking frivolous forms of redress. An innovative concept is that which involves the refund of a portion of the charge being levied for the lodging of the appeal if the applicant wins the appeal.

Mepa will endeavor to promote dialogue and good practice by encouraging dialogue between case officers and registered objectors. This process should result in a lower incidence of appeals lodged by interested third parties as their concerns would have been addressed at earlier stages during the application process.

A second set of measures, aimed at improving the appeals mechanism, provide for further powers to the appeals mechanism. The government will make legal provisions in the new legislative instrument in order to empower the planning and review tribunal to suspend the execution of works in respect of a granted development permit in the case of third party appeal. While this gives affected stakeholders a redress mechanism throughout the development stage of the project, in such cases, priority hearings will be secured in order to avoid frivolous appeals against developers and unnecessary stoppages of their work schedule. The tribunal may exert such powers in respect of certain developments in: ODZ; scheduled property grade 1 or grade 2; demolition within Category 1 UCAs which includes demolition of façade; and special area of conservation.

More specifically, the tribunal may suspend the execution of works subject to the following conditions, namely that the:

• Appellant makes a request for such suspension concurrently with the application for appeal;

• Tribunal deems the prejudice that would ensue if the permit is not suspended to be disproportionate to the damage caused if the development is actually undertaken;

• First hearing of the tribunal will take place within six working days from the receipt of the appeal;

• Tribunal will communicate its final decision within three months from the first hearing of the appeal; and

• Suspension of the permit will be valid for not more than three months from the date of the first hearing of the appeal.