The recent publication of two public consultation documents on land use and environment protection have rightly raised eyebrows.

The first document, ‘Strategic Plan for Environment and Development’, (Sped) is set to replace the 137-page, detailed Structure Plan of 1992 which has guided land-use development over the last two decades.

The proposed Sped is 26 pages long and reads like a wish list, striking all the right cords by constantly stressing the need to balance demand for development with socio-economic considerations and the need for environment protection.

But policy guidelines are generic and include a number of potential controversies such as the ‘appraisal’ of the 2006 development zone boundary, the implementation of a cruise liner terminal, a yacht marina and airfield in Gozo, the ‘use’ of previously developed land in Comino, the dumping of inert waste at sea and a government option of ‘non-compliance’ with Sped in cases of projects of national importance.

Yet, it is the second publication document, ‘For an efficient planning system’ that raises most concern. The public has been given a mere 21 days to submit its reaction to the government’s plan to separate the environmental and development planning functions and effectively bring an end to Mepa as we know it. The stress is on providing a ‘one-stop shop’ through a new Development Planning Authority that would include the introduction of fast track applications that conform with policy requirements.

The emphasis on improving the development application process gives the impression that bureaucracy is being confused with regulation. It may be that less regulation would expedite the process, but some proposals in the document point a return to the chaos in building development that Mepa, with its many shortcomings, has managed to regulate and contain to a limited extent.

In a sector riddled with irregularities, it is incomprehensible that Mepa’s already weak enforcement arm is replaced by an even weaker system. The maximum period for an enforcement notice to take effect is being extended to 50 days to allow for compliance.

‘Warning notices’ are to be introduced prior to stop and enforcement notices, effectively further prolonging the enforcement process. Furthermore, enforcement notices are to be suspended for all cases when an application to sanction is submitted. The oldest trick in the book to stall law enforcement is therefore set to remain.

But most ominous of all is one sentence that says the minister “can make regulations to regularise development”. A minister’s discretion to interfere in this most sensitive and crucial aspect of planning control undermines the whole process and opens the door to abuse.

The proposal in the document to delete the sixth schedule – the list of developments that cannot be sanctioned – will reverse the previous government’s policy to refuse to regularise illegal development outside development zones. A daily fine is being proposed instead, effectively reopening the door to more infringements in the countryside by anyone willing to take the risk, or maybe even a able afford the fine.

The reintroduction of outline development permissions also comes as a surprise considering this government actually used the issuance of an outline permit to justify the controversial Xemxija development.

It is incomprehensible, given recent government statements that it will not tolerate building abuses, that the proposed changes will weaken rather than strengthen enforcement.

It seems that on the excuse that government wants to do away with bureaucracy, policies are being diluted to the point that development within and without development zones will become easier and faster to process. At this rate, the illegal development that plagues this country will not be stopped, but be regularised or sanctioned.