Planning and politics

Mepa is a crucial institution to Malta's long-term progress. Indeed, the country must continuously seek to balance between socio-economic growth and the principles of sustainability. Environmental considerations and land-use pressures, in particular, are exerted by the often conflicting agricultural, tourism, transport, commercial, residential, educational, infrastructural and social needs. All must be rendered as complementary as possible within a holistic plan for the country's balanced socio-economic development.

Despite a number of reforms since inception, Mepa has not managed expectations and certainly inspired little confidence amongst the investor and the public at large. Time and again, Mepa topped the lists in surveys conducted by the Malta Chamber regarding which institution was most detrimental to business.

In the Malta Chamber's view, the blueprint for Mepa reform places a disproportionate focus on the initial planning process which is regarded as a minor part of the complete building project. It is our view that the country is not giving due weight to the rest of the development process involving site management, on-site health and safety, safety in use, quality assurance issues, energy efficiency and innovation in design.

In principle, we believe that planning processes should be kept at arm's length from the political class. However, in terms of the need for balanced and holistic plans, it is deemed acceptable for high-level strategic policy to reside within the OPM to ensure compatibility of structure plans with other national policies. Government needs to set the strategic direction forward in this regard and draw on the technical expertise within Mepa to design the appropriate policies.

Nonetheless, the country needs to steer away from direct and indirect involvement by politicians in lower-level policy functions. It is deemed both dangerous and undesirable for the politician to be involved in matters of lower-level policy, for instance at the level of drawing ODZ boundaries. Once policies are set, these must be clearly and effectively communicated to Mepa, architects and stakeholders to ensure their harmonious and efficient implementation.

The Malta Chamber agrees with the zero tolerance policy for ODZ in terms of projects that are compatible with inside-scheme zones. This represents an environmental safeguard aiming to avoid any spill-over of projects into ODZs that could otherwise be located elsewhere. Future scrutiny of policies by a Parliamentary Committee besides public consultation is deemed as a safeguard against potential mishandling.

In line with our policy that building on virgin lands need to be minimised, it is being suggested that projects to satisfy special agricultural and educational needs contemplated for ODZs should only be allowed after the approach of retrofitting derelict, unused sites is investigated. It is suggested that the government should set a sustainable development agenda for the country by setting the example and consider school retrofitting rather than develop new schools in ODZ zones (at a rate of one per year) in a lower birth rate environment.

Going forward, it must be ensured that there are clear policies defining where and how certain areas can be developed. As long as these policies and parameters are professionally planned and defined, are clear to all stakeholders and are strictly adhered to during decision stage, the Malta Chamber believes the contribution of NGOs and Civil Society on the Mepa Board would not be necessary. From a governance viewpoint, our organisation agrees with the concept of full-time DCCs composed of people under the direct employment of Mepa. The issue arises on the need to find people with the required expertise and integrity.

Besides, the Malta Chamber deems that the DCC boards need to be composed of more than three people for practical reasons and to provide better safeguards against potential foul-play and absenteeism.

Representation of parties involved or affected by the development application during DCC sessions is also positive. Nevertheless, it is suggested that objections are screened beforehand to eliminate any made on frivolous grounds. This will ensure smoother and speedier processes.

Various proposals under the efficiency pillar are management issues that should not have waited for a full-blown reform of the institution. In this regard, strengthening Mepa's front desk will certainly assist in promoting efficiency. Investors have often complained to the Malta Chamber of approaching Mepa and finding no appropriate guidance. This is not acceptable in terms of lost investment and employment opportunities. "Silent" Fridays were a primary cause of frustration and should have been eliminated much earlier. Mepa should also be looking at abolishing its summer working hours in the interest of better client orientation. The formulation of a Continuous Professional Development (CPD) programme for staff is also welcomed. It is suggested that Mepa introduces an effective internal recognition process for proactive officials and staff.

The Malta Chamber looks forward to the removal of the chess clock system as well as a new policy where deadlines are set for application processing. It should enable applicants and investors to forecast when Mepa decisions are forthcoming and plan accordingly, making it favourable to investment and business-planning. It remains to be seen, however, what ensues in the event that no reply of decision is forthcoming at any stage of the process, once the set time-frame has elapsed.

The accountability strand envisages the adoption of a Code of Ethics which the Malta Chamber believes should be supplemented by potential deterrents to any misdemeanour and possible action against employees found guilty through the internal audit and other processes. The reform blueprint gives no indication as to whether employees could potentially face financial, disciplinary, criminal or other measures.

The Malta Chamber also believes that the set-up of an enforcement directorate is a positive proposal as long as enforcement is fair and non-selective. This part of the reform must break the common notion that Mepa is weak with the strong and strong with the weak.

The Malta Chamber notes a conspicuous absence of proposed budgets to finance the reform. The various measures contemplated, particularly those related to efficiency, are bound to exert a notable effect on Mepa's cost base and need to be budgeted for. The reform also contemplates a migration of certain non-core functions to other entities which may have previously been net contributors to Mepa's coffers. It is hoped that the reform will not also result in prohibitive increases in costs to business and other applicants. This would not be acceptable unless Mepa attains efficiency and other deliverables set by this reform.

Similarly, the reform blueprint makes no reference to time-frames for implementation of the reform. In this regard, the Malta Chamber augurs that the necessary budgets and structures are in place to enable the much awaited reform to take place as required.

Ms Ellul is president of the Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry.