Systems of spatial planning

In his recent Talking Point on Mepa, Martin Scicluna argues against separating the planning and environmental decision-making processes. He justifies this stance arguing that it is far better to resolve tensions between development planning and environment protection within one organisation. There are other reasons why the two functions should remain vested in one authority.

There are also various reasons why, so far, Mepa has not fully delivered on public expectations in its role as watchdog of the environment. The lack of adequate professional resources is a crucial element leading to an inadequate servicing of the functions required by a voluminous body of EU environmental legislation. The decision-making bodies - the Mepa board and the Development Control Commissions - do not have adequate representations of environmental interests.

The planning system itself can deliver various environmental improvements through the permitting process for development by incorporating conditions in the permit which secure environmental protection and improvement. Moreover, the government has so far not authorised the implementation of an environmental permitting system for industrial activities except for those that require an IPPC permit. Introducing an environmental permitting system would bring all industrial activities in line with EU environmental standards and norms. This would also require the setting up of an Environment Control Commission.

Mepa has also been operating under the provisions of two legislative acts which, for example, prescribe two different procedures for enforcement. This will be resolved once the two laws are incorporated into one as already decided by the government.

The Development Planning Act and the Environment Protection Act have already adopted the concept of sustainable development as a major objective. This should be the guiding role for the planning and environment directorates within Mepa. There is certainly a case not to duplicate resources and functions across government structures.

There are obviously lessons to be learnt from elsewhere, particularly from other European countries, as regards environmental governance. The local planning mechanisms already in place could obviously be strengthened even within the existing legislative set-up, taking on board more direct environmental concerns in mainstream planning. Adopting a spatial planning approach in the broader sense would integrate the spatial impacts of sectoral policies around a territorial plan.

The Environment Protection Act clearly provided powers in areas, which could be better regulated through the planning process and the provisions of the Development Planning Act. Some areas of responsibility as assigned by the Environment Protection Act were hitherto not developed within the provisions of the law, such as, aspects of cultural and historical heritage protection and environmental impact assessment. However, there are other areas of competence where overlaps were created with the remit and functions of the planning authority.

There is a great deal of overlap in functions as developed by the planning and environment directorates, which so far relate to the following: environmental surveys and monitoring; scheduled property and conservation orders; nature conservation; coastal zone management; environmental impact assessment; enforcement; site management; pollution control and environmental education.

Any discussion of environmental issues is rendered complex by the extensive nature of environmental concerns.

These may range from the ecological management of natural resources and the conservation of habitat, flora and fauna through the protection and enhancement of man-made environments and the control of pollution to sanitation and waste disposal. The management of these matters, therefore, extends across many arms of government in a similar way to the spread of the planning system with which it has much in common.

Land use planning has become an accepted and legitimate activity intended to address the wider social and community conflicts associated with the use and development of land and property. Planning has evolved over time as a facilitating process of conflict mediation associated with the development of land and property, the creation of local economic development and community regeneration opportunities, environmental enhancement and protection and the provision of infrastructure.

The role and nature of planning is changing. Planning practice is being more and more influenced by developments in the fields of economic development, environmental management and transport. "At the same time, there is a remorseless push for horizontal integration of the work of related professions." There is a growing desire for "joined-up government" with greater emphasis upon coordination of sectors and the involvement of communities as stakeholders. These trends have a planning echo in the European concept of "spatial planning", which broadens the approach to issues across a wider perspective than "town and country planning". There are a large number of EU measures that influence the planning system in a variety of ways and these derive from diverse areas such as policies as regards the environment, transport, regional development, agriculture, fisheries, EIA, birds, habitats and Seveso directives.

Underlying these programmes is a desire on the part of the European Commission to encourage development at European, national and regional levels of government, systems of spatial planning - which explicitly seek to bring together territorial, social, economic and environmental planning in one integrated process - as an instrument of sustainable development.

This new approach calls for strategic management of spaces and territories in ways that organise land uses with a wider regard for the balance between developmental and environmental objectives.

Dr Cassar is a former director general of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.