Mepa Bill: Parliament, take note!

Finally, the much-awaited Mepa law reform has been communicated by the government by means of a Bill. Although the proposed law was expected to foster more accountability, regrettably this is not the case. Proposed article 77 (amending article 39A of the Development Planning Act) provides that a valid planning permit may still be revoked by the authority if it results that an omission on the face of the record which offends the law was made by the authority itself during application process. However, it is worrying to note that the proposed law, in particular subsections (4) and (5) of said article, provides that the aggrieved party will not be entitled to any compensation in such eventuality despite the fact that the applicant cannot be held responsible for such omission.

More so, the Bill provides no transitory clause for pending applications, which are affected by changes in planning policies during an active process. In terms of the proposed law, applicants and potential ones who invest in a property and apply for a permit under a set of established regulations will still be left in a quandary. Will such applications be judged according to the previous law in force when the building application was registered with the authority or will they be processed according to the new law, yet to come in force? Surely, we cannot say that the legislator is thinking of enacting retrospectively.

In the same vein, the Bill certainly does not provide for an effective measure to be taken in those instances when policies change after an application is submitted and is affected negatively by such change. This state of affairs leaves much to be desired!

The proposed reform was intended to bring about more transparency, especially in view of what was reported in recent months by the planning auditor, whereby he insisted that applicants should be precluded from meeting decision-makers behind closed doors. However, no concern was ever expressed at the fact that meetings between case officers and decision-makers are held behind closed doors in the absence of the applicant. Should the applicant be put at a disadvantage a priori by not having equality of arms? This is being said because, unfortunately, once again the Bill does not prohibit members of the directorates to discuss planning applications with decision-makers in the absence of the applicant. This grievance should certainly be addressed forthwith in the interests of justice.

The proposed law was set to render a more efficient planning process. It should be highlighted that the liaison officer, whose current role is to iron out shortcomings during the planning process, is nowhere mentioned in the Bill. The proposed law is, nonetheless, suggesting that applicants may appoint a mediator whose role is to act as a reference between the authority and the applicant (now article 39 of the law). Will this service be in place against payment? Consequently, will the post of the existing liaison officer be abolished?

On the subject of efficiency, the Bill (through article IV) enables the authority and the minister to issue legal notices in relation to application timeframes through legal notices subject to public consultation. However, such legal notices have so far not yet been published. It seems that the said regulations are still in the making. Is this the case of putting the cart before the horse?

We were promised that an application (save for ODZ and major projects) will be determined within 12 or 26 weeks. Indeed, these timeframes are already mentioned in the existing law. Yet, a substantial number of planning applications are still not determined in time, notwithstanding the timeframe provided by law. Unless the proposed enabling regulations stipulate that a deemed approval is forthcoming if no decision is given in the stipulated time there is no hope the authority would be rendered more efficient!

The proposed reform was aimed at bringing more consistency in decision-making. This can only be brought about if there is a system of sentencing policy made available to the new decision bodies so that such decision-makers will be able to build on already established case law. Perhaps it is now the right time to introduce the doctrine of precedence. Surely, this would be the best way to deal with the concept of consistency.

It is now up to our members of Parliament to decide whether these recommendations should find solace in this new piece of legislation.

Mr Musumeci is an architect by profession and the mayor of Siġġiewi.

robert@rmperiti.com