'Environment no longer the Cinderella of development'

Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco has vowed that the environment would no longer be the Cinderella of development, but would be given top priority. People seemed to think that the environment would always be the loser against planning, but to avoid this, Mepa was being given the necessary resources to execute its functions to the full.

Introducing the second reading of the Environment and Development Planning Bill, Dr de Marco said the proposed changes would bring the environment on the same level as planning and development at Mepa, and administrative measures would be taken to strengthen the drafting of policies.

Dr de Marco, whose responsibilities include the environment and planning authority, started by going through its vicissitudes since the foundation of the Planning Authority just over 18 years ago, with the environment being added on for its increasing importance as time went by.

The tension between the environment and development was always very real, as in other countries, but it was felt more in Malta because of the small size of the land. Above all, the principle must be one of sustainable development.

The environment and development functions must work together to ease the tension between the two, otherwise Malta would need another authority to decide between them. Instead of this, the Bill was proposing the setting up of two separate directorates. Because of the country's size it would not make sense to have two separate authorities, so planning decisions in Malta would still ultimately be taken by a single national authority.

Mepa's Forward Planning Unit would now be transferred to a new policy unit in the Office of the Prime Minister. The authority would lose its function of setting policy.

The policy unit has to draw up new policies on outside development zones, building height restrictions, local plans and compliance certificates as a matter of priority.

Mepa would no longer be responsible for transport planning, mineral resources, climate change issues and the management of construction sites. These areas of operation would be transferred to other authorities and entities.

Environmental policies would entwine various government policies on various sectors.

Dr de Marco said work had also started to draft a national environmental policy, a project that, he hoped, would find all-round cooperation, including that of the opposition and NGOs.

Another measure being proposed was to have more human resources in the environment directorate. A technical commission had been set up to identify Mepa policies that were obsolete, in conflict with others, impractical or could be merged with others. These had sometimes presented obstacles to Mepa's work.

Also set up was a board for the registration of consultants to make both environmental impact assessments and other studies. Since the board had issued its guidelines it had already had 20 meetings with interested bodies, including the opposition.

This arrangement would strengthen the monitoring of EIAs.

The decision had been taken to keep such consultants ex parte, so that Mepa could still feel free to criticise any EIA. This would also strengthen the scrutiny of an EIA prepared by an applicant, thus making for balanced decisions.

Dr de Marco said the Bill was also proposing a separate register of monitors with a view to greater independence of the analysis of reports.

The reform envisaged a code of ethics for all Mepa employees, officials and members of the boards. This would be published after consultations with the unions.

The Bill, the result of a wide consultation process, had been built on consistency, efficiency, accountability and enforcement. Timeframes had been set to be followed by Mepa, the applicants and their architects. The Bill, which would be accompanied by a number of rules and regulations, would be Mepa's legal base.

Dr de Marco said the reform would lead to the public's respect, even through a strong enforcement element.

The Bill was divided into a number of chapters and schedules, including the duty to protect the environment, the powers of Mepa and enforcement of control.

The Mepa board would now consist of between 13 and 15 members, including not more than three public officers representing the government and not more than eight members chosen from persons of experience in various aspects, including the environmental voluntary organisations.

The authority would have two Development Control Commissions composed of three members each working full-time, rather than part-time as was the case today. The chairmen would both be deputy chairmen of the Mepa board.

One commission would determine applications within development schemes while the other would decide on submissions in urban conservation zones, ODZs and major projects not requiring an environmental impact assessment.

All parties, including case officers, would have the chance to submit arguments before the DCC.

Dr de Marco said the Planning Appeals Board would be reconstituted and the chair would be in the hands of a planner.

Apart from planning matters, the new tribunal would have jurisdiction on environmental matters. Contrary to the present scenario, the tribunal would have the right to stop a development pending an appeal by third parties in sensitive cases that were in ODZ, special areas of conservation or scheduled properties.

A new pre-application screening process would be introduced for applicants to discuss their plans with Mepa officials. The process would not be mandatory but would help developers conform to policy even before the application process started, and would enable Mepa to determine whether the application would be decided in 12 or 26 weeks.

Where environment impact assessments were required, developers would still be able to choose their own consultants, but Mepa would be able to appoint independent consultants to vet their work.

The concept of outline development permits would end, but applicants would be able to ask for a planning and environment brief from Mepa before submitting an application for a major project to enable them to understand whether a project was feasible from a planning and environmental perspective.

There would not be any sanctioning of illegal development because the government aimed to stop people from starting any illegal development. Fines would increase from the present €11 to €50 a day and the maximum penalty would increase from €2,300 to €50,000.

Enforcement notices would not be suspended if the applicant filed an application once the notice was issued.

A new Bill on sustainable development would soon be introduced.

Concluding, Dr de Marco said that during the coming days, MPs would be discussing what was close to the people's heart.