Nationalist MP Franco Debono said the Mepa reform was one of the fundamental aspects in the government's programme for this legislature. The large amount of regulations, legal notices and policies pertaining to planning and development could give rise to a number of inconsistencies.
He praised Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco for appointing an ad hoc commission which had to check for policies which were either obsolete, impractical, of a conflicting nature or which needed to be change to eliminate the administrative burden. He said it was important to simplify regulations.
The commission found that, in the Structure Plan itself, only 56 policies out of 320 were of a strategic nature; 93 were not related to planning; another 100 were not of a strategic level; 45 pertained to supplementary planning items and 26 were of a legislative nature.
Other Mepa policies needed updating too. Out of 140 policies only 60 had to remain unchanged. Circulars to architects contained 175 items out of which 101 were to be removed.
The commission, Dr Debono said, had concluded that law should distinguish between legislation, policy and procedure. The policy framework could be easily identified through planning documents.
The strategic plan should remain the responsibility of the government, while Mepa had to assume responsibility for local planning and procedure.
This would lead to less bureaucracy.
Dr Debono referred to the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition on spatial planning adding that the Commission had examined this. One had to see how this issue could be further developed.
He compared the British planning model adopted in Malta and the continental system which was more rigid. One could strengthen the British model while adopting some aspects of the latter.
Dr Debono said that the reform contemplated more authority to the Planning and Development Commission. He referred to the Committee which was examining the codification of laws and said this could be extended to include also planning and environment laws, and legal and government notices applied by Mepa.
Ċensu Galea (PN) said one should not point fingers at the Development Control Commissions responsible for issuing building permits but should analyse what the directorates' original recommendations had been and whether these were wrongly drafted.
With the establishment of the Planning Authority political interference was completely eradicated because recommendations were made by people working in the directorate of the Authority.
He disagreed with the proposal that practising architects could not form part of Mepa boards because the best evaluation could only be made by practising professionals. The planning process was a very delicate one in a small country such as Malta and administrators had to take decisions according to the law and Mepa policies. He disagreed with non-practising persons being appointed to the Mepa Board because there might be people who would be working on the side.
Mr Galea appealed to the agriculture department and the Malta Resource Authority which were to consider ODZ applications to speed up the process so that applicants could be given a clear definitive answer. He also appealed to the agriculture ministry to find ways of better coordination with the person evaluating the applications.
Joe Falzon (PN) said one needed to keep in mind the principles leading to better quality of life when considering applications. Each decision-making process should arrive at sustainable development.
He said that spatial planning should be looked at in a broader way. Property and land development should have at its core the hope of a better future. The separation of the environment and development entities would lead to bureaucracy. They should, by nature, work hand in hand as the term itself suggests. The country already experienced problems with its limited resources.
Mr Falzon said the practice had developed where the directorate took the approach where it refused policies in which divergences were found.
He called for better guidance in evaluating applications. Honesty and integrity should be at the basis of the DCC's decisions with sustainable development at the core of its decision-making.
Parameters needed to be identified when it came to defining an ODZ, in order to help people understand the difference between industrial and agricultural zones.
Concluding, Mr Falzon said that this reform had enforced the four pillars of efficiency, accountability, independence and consistency. It would provided a voice to all stakeholders and its framework had been widened.