Summary of salient proposals

The report presented by UPAP presents a series of proposals related to the strategic and operational aspects of Mepa. The salient proposals are summarised hereunder:

• Amalgamate the DPA and the EPA into one act to reflect the government's position of joint responsibility for planning and the environment;

• Correct the imbalance of power of the planning over the environmental arm through legal harmonisation and promoting a culture change in the authority;

• Set up a director-general or chief executive officer position tasked with coordination of planning and the environment;

• Identify overlapping functions between Mepa and other state entities;

• Establish a new Environment Management and Planning Professions Act to regulate planners and environmental managers;

• Bring into force the registers for consultants undertaking EIAs and traffic impact statements;

• Establish a legal framework and a code of ethics for NGOs;

• Effect changes to the enforcement function undertaken by Mepa including the centralisation of the planning and environmental enforcement into one structure; reform in the enforcement process to make it similar to that of planning applications whereby an enforcement report would be prepared and presented to a board; and establishment of an enforcement board.

• Strengthen the audit officer's role enabling this function to audit all the stakeholders involved;

• Effect changes to the DPD's procedures including the elimination of Mepa's refunds on refused permits and the setting up of an aesthetics board under Kamra tal-Periti;

• Effect changes to the pre-assessment, fees and qualification procedures in relation to major projects;

• Strengthen the forward planning unit within Mepa;

• Establish an intermediary to manage the payment for EIAs on behalf of the developer in order to mitigate against the threat of non-payment in case of application refusal;

• Reduce the number of members on the Mepa board to seven, setting up one full-time DCC together with a reform in the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee and the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee;

• Develop a partnership between Mepa and the University of Malta to develop the required planning professionals;

• Effect changes to the appeals process, including: making third parties who lodge an appeal liable for damages; suspending all works on a valid permit pending the outcome of the appeal; charging the party lodging the appeal for specialised input of Mepa staff; and setting a limit for the number of deferrals that can be made.

In addition to these publications, other bodies presented their positions and suggestions to the government, namely:

• Professional bodies including KTP and Chamber of Planners;

• Users' Committee;

• ENGOs including Nature Trust, Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar and Din l-Art Ħelwa;

• General Retailers and Traders Union;

• Occupational Health and Safety Authority; and

• Individual Mepa employees.

The following section will provide a brief overview of the salient propositions and areas of focus which the aforementioned highlighted throughout the consultation process.

The areas highlighted by the organisations listed above varied; a priori one would expect a certain bias in terms of emphasis on particular areas according to the different areas in which such organisations work. While the GRTU focused more on increasing efficiency, Mepa employees stressed the need to address HR gaps and ENGOs emphasised on increased attention to the environment, for example heritage issues and a more stringent approach in ODZ applications. Notwithstanding these differences, a certain level of congruence was noted. A stock-take of the salient issues transpiring from this feedback shows the emphasis on the reform to incorporate the following areas:

Structure - looking at significant changes mostly in board and commissions' composition and the establishment of new structures to improve Mepa's service. The main propositions include:

• Mepa's joint responsibility for planning and the environment - while ENGOs promoted this concept, Mepa employees and the CoP showed disagreement;

• Changes to membership on current boards and commissions - the main propositions related to changes in membership so as to ensure a wider representation of civil society and environmental expertise. In addition, a code of ethics to be developed for board members was suggested together with a similar code for architects, with KTP proposing self-regulation for this profession;

• The need for harmonisation of the legal acts of legislation and provisions governing both planning and environment was highlighted by both the CoP and Mepa employees;

• Mepa employees highlighted the need for Mepa to focus strictly on its core functions and shed off the many functions which it is currently undertaking that belong to other government entities;

• Propositions for the setting up of new structures included the establishment of a quality assurance function by the Users' Committee and an environment appeals board and a structure acting as a "watchdog" for DCCs proposed by Mepa employees together with the strengthening of functions such as the customer care function; and

• Enforcement - Mepa employees proposed that Mepa be divested of its enforcement function and a national enforcement structure be set up.

Planning process - changes proposed mainly cover measures aimed at increasing efficiency, consistency and transparency. These include:

• The GRTU's main proposals were in respect of a speedier processing of development of applications coupled with a less stringent approach in respect of certain developments for example waiving the need for a DCC in respect of developments having adjacent plots and allowing developers small-scale developments in ODZs while requiring compensation by providing large-areas of recreational space in return. Mepa employees argued in favour of a waiver for the need for DCC review in case of straightforward inside scheme applications and proposed the widening of the scope of DNOs.

On the other hand, a more stringent approach is called for by ENGOs; Nature Trust proposed outright refusal of development within ODZ and increased restrictions on certain developments while DLĦ proposed the outright refusal of permits for high-rise buildings and an increased attention to heritage issues. KTP and CoP proposed the assessment of extending the revoking of certain permits;

• Proposals by the GRTU, Users' Committee and Mepa employees to increase transparency included:

i. Minuting of consultations between applicants and their architects and Mepa officials;

ii. Mediators to bring together applicants and directorates; and

iii. Case officers being present for DCC sessions.

• Securing improvements in consultation practices and coordination between government entities, Mepa, constituted bodies and NGOs was also emphasised by many - KTP, Nature Trust, DLĦ and Mepa employees - including the sharing of information among government entities and internal coordination across Mepa's directorates; and

• A call for increased consistency was emphasised by the Users' Committee, DLĦ and Mepa employees, featuring proposals for DCCs to follow more closely Mepa policies, termination of negotiations between applicants and DCC members, and greater consistency in local plans.

EIA process - the need for a review of the EIA Regulations coupled with changes to ensure the elimination of bias, in favour of developers, currently plaguing the EIA process.

Resourcing - the strongest call for increased human resources was made by Mepa employees who mentioned several departments within Mepa which require significant, additional resourcing together with training. Nature Trust also highlighted the HR imbalance within the authority against the environment arm of Mepa.

Other proposals include:

• efforts to increase public awareness, accessibility for the public and positive marketing of Mepa operations;

• the need to ensure that a post-mortem of the reform is carried out;

• the issue of precedents was raised by the majority of the stakeholders; there seems to be consensus about going for a decision-making approach which ignores any precedent. Moreover, Mepa should aim to correct such precedents when these are noticed from time to time. Furthermore, both the CoP and DLĦ feel that the appeals board should take up this approach in order to be consistent with the Mepa Board and DCCs; and, in respect of policy, Mepa employees proposed: a stronger role for OPM in policy through the preparation of development briefs and business plans; and the review of the 1990 structure plan and a review of the development control guidance 2007.

The overview of the feedback received throughout the consultation process on the Mepa reform clearly shows consensus on a number of streams and the emphasis on common elements across stakeholders. It transpires that the need to address problems in efficiency, transparency and consistency is felt by all parties who participated in this process.

The government is highly appreciative of the comments that have been put forward and has taken into account all inputs before charting its blueprint for further consultation. It is in this context that the government has sought to be responsive to the various perspectives while striving to achieve a balance in which all players can find the common ground to move forward.

Any omissions should not be taken as having been ignored or as a sign of lack of appreciation. On the contrary, a national conference will be held to discuss the proposed reform in order to fine-tune our vision towards a solution which works for the common good.