The government is considering establishing time frames for the validation process of permits, some of which would be determined by the applicants.
Moreover, Mepa would remain involved in formulating planning and environmental policy, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco, who is responsible for the reform, said this morning.
The proposed reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is currently being debated in a national conference held as part of the consultation process.
Various stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations, Mepa employees and construction workers, are taking part. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is present.
Very slight changes have been made to the original reform document, the most significant one being that the proposed voluntary screening process would be given a four week term.
Those present put across their grievances, positions and opinions.
Dr de Marco said that the reform was not one of just one entity because planning and the environment were part of every sector.
He said that ironically, the main criticism being made was that the government was reducing Mepa’s power to decide on development policy.
This was a certificate of confidence in the authority’s operations. For while the people wanted a change in Mepa, they wanted a change which would strengthen, rather than weaken the institution.
He said that the people’s participation in the process was strong and a number of consultative meetings had been held. These had led to the drawing up of the document “A Blueprint for Mepa’s Reform”.
Other meetings were held following the publication of the document and the people’s views and opinions were again received. The conference being held today was a continuation of the consultation process.
The conference was also an opportunity to stock take the proposals received, which the government was analysing in detail.
Architect Robert Musumerci pointed out that he did not agree with the idea proposed that case law would be ignored.
Mepa assistant director in the Environment Unit, Marie Briguglio, said that the reform was not ambitious enough. She said it should have been more consistent with the authority’s name, environment not addressed enough.
Environmentalist Astrid Vella insisted that DCC board members should be scrutinised by the public before they were appointed.
People in the construction sector expressed worry that restricting development would it harder for small developers to obtain permits.
GRTU director general Vince Farrugia said that members on Mepa boards should not be appointed by the government but by a board of stake holders.
Former Mepa director general Godwin Cassar asked if politicians would be drawing up the structure plan or if they would just be giving the direction but it would be drawn up by experts.
Church Environment Commission chairman Victor Asciak said that the experience of the last 50 years had shown that politicians could not be trusted to have a long term vision. He suggested that DCC board members should be answerable to Parliament.
Former minister Michael Falzon asked how would the reform contribute to ensure consistency when it still allowed different case officers to interpret policy in different ways.
Former minister Jesmond Mugliett asked what would the environment be gaining from the proposed reform.
The Labour Party’s spokesman for the environment, Leo Brincat raised a number of questions mainly on enforcement and accountability.