'New Planning Bill adds new problems'

Opposition spokesman on planning and housing Roderick Galdes told Parliament on Wednesday that he had expected better from the government than the proposed Environment and Development Planning Bill. The old problems would remain and new ones added, he said.

The country needed a planning authority that safeguarded planning in a transparent and accountable manner while, at the same time, protecting the environment.

He said that the bill proposed that certain aspects, including transport, be left out of the planning process. The excuse was that there was the Transport Malta, the authority responsible for transport. He opined that transport should be considered a core function in planning because it was a major land use taker.

The government was looking at Mepa as an authority responsible only for the issuing of building permits when it was originally conceived as a one stop-shop reality. It was not enough to propose a strategic unit at the OPM. Investment was needed in resources and research.

Forward planning had shown that there was enough land to develop for 20 years. However, the government had decided to give building permits in ODZ areas before the elections.

Mr Galdes said consensus on the Bill could not be achieved if the planning authority was not separated from the protection of the environment. There should be an agency which acted as a watchdog on the planning process. The country needed a core development strategy which also considered the economic, social and regional aspects of planning.

He pointed out that the waiting list at Mepa was still an acute problem. Current planning was determined through speculation and political exigencies with discrimination in local plans where high-storey buildings were concerned.

He claimed that Mepa was used by the government in issuing the preliminary development plans for the Delimara power station extension. Government interference was such that Mepa set up an office where permits were approved through SMSs.

Mr Galdes declared that the latest Mepa reform was the worst in its history, with erosion of environmental protection and an authority amalgamating two entities which could never work together. The planning aspect often curbs environmental protection because of vested interests.

The government was proposing that an application would only be validated after all the paperwork was ready. This meant increased expenses for clients who would also be faced with higher fees. Case officers did not know how the new system was to be handled. This would create uncertainty and increase bureaucracy while the government did not act to curb abuses by other entities.

Mr Galdes asked how was the government to ensure enforcement when it did not have enough finances to pay its contractors and the police. The enforcement directorate meant more expenses in job creation.

On a point of clarification by Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco, Mr Galdes said that at least the government had accepted the opposition's proposal that local councils be regarded as possible registered objectors in the application process.

He said it was crucial that members of Mepa boards act professionally and proposed a parliamentary scrutiny committee on appointments. There was no objection to political input in Mepa boards because politicians had a responsibility to bear. Likewise, appointed members of these boards had to be held accountable.

The Bill did not adequately address the public's concerns and it lacked detail. He said that the House Development Planning Committee ought to be provided with the power to scrutinise the manner in which decisions were taken by Mepa.

Persons who applied for placements within the committees of the DCC had received letters indicating that they were not selected without being provided sufficient reasons. Although Dr de Marco indicated that only those persons who were found not to satisfy the conditions of eligibility had so far been informed that their application would not be considered, Mr Galdes emphasised that applicants had received a letter in this regard after attending an interview. He reiterated that Parliament ought to be informed of the process through which these applicants were being selected.

Although the Bill contained some positive aspects, other issues needed to be considered. The current appeals board ought to be made to close its caseload within an established timeframe rather than pass its caseload onto a new body. The House committee ought to be provided with competence to investigate cases that were brought to its attention as part of a set-up of internal investigation procedures.

Mr Galdes agreed with the removal of the reconsideration procedure, but questioned whether the appeals board could efficiently deal with these claims. He also positively noted the element of sanctioning yet commented that it was incorrect for this to be used as a way of obtaining a permit that would otherwise not have been issued.

A separate and distinct agency ought to be established on the environment and that it ought to be this agency, independently from Mepa and the applicant, that was to issue any environment impact assessment.

He called the reform to acknowledge the planning profession and for members of the profession to be given access to the planning procedures.

* * *

In reporting Dr de Marco's piloting of the Bill yesterday, it was erroneously stated that "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." Any inconvenience is regretted.