The planning authority is in the final stages of proposing an amnesty to sanction long-standing illegal developments, The Sunday Times of Malta has learnt.

The scheme, which the authority is hoping to roll out by the summer, is meant to wipe out a substantial chunk of Mepa’s pending enforcement cases, which number about 10,000, and to rake in more than €20 million.

Sources said the plan is at a very advanced stage and the authority has already drafted a Bill.

However, while acknowledging that the authority had done a lot of work on the proposal, Mepa CEO Johann Buttigieg insisted it had not yet been presented to the board or Cabinet.

He would not give details of how much sanctioning these developments would cost applicants, saying he did not feel it was right to discuss details before the proposal was vetted and approved at board and political level.

Though he rejected the term “amnesty”, the scheme will work very much on the lines of other amnesties for VAT tax arrears or for people who tampered with their electricity meter.

Applicants will be expected to pay a one-time fee, that is heftier than the current sanctioning charges, through an online portal and file a series of documents, such as site plans.

The only difference is that the outcome is not guaranteed. The application will go to a board and only if it is given the green light, according to certain criteria, will the property be regularised.

The scheme will apply to all infringements that took place before 2013 and those outside development zones that took place before the full establishment of the planning authority in 1994.

There will also be some restrictions on the change of use without permission of properties serving as premises for sprayers or mechanics in residential areas.

The CEO also insisted that it would not apply to the Armier boathouses because people who apply under this scheme will have to produce a certificate of ownership. However, the rationale is similar to that of amnesties granted in other areas.

‘Is anybody seriously suggesting we demolish whole thing’

“The easiest thing is to do nothing but the reality is that there are thousands of cases which cannot reasonably be enforced.

“If a block of apartments has a shaft which is not in line with sanitary laws because it is 30cm short, is anyone really suggesting that we should demolish the whole thing?” he said.

In fact, the previous administration had introduced legislation in 2012 and 2013 to deal specifically with these sorts of problems.

However, Mr Buttigieg said, the certificate of “concession” granted by Mepa under this programme was not always being accepted by banks.

“That means that the piece of paper we are giving people is useless and with this scheme we are intervening to address this issue,” he said.

The easiest thing is to do nothing but the reality is that there are thousands of cases which cannot reasonably be enforced

The Office of the Prime Minister also applies leverage on these sort of cases, with a spokesman saying Mepa was essentially proposing an improved version of the scheme announced by the previous government.

“Over the years, these infringements, especially minor ones, have not been acted upon and some are logistically impossible to enforce,” a spokesman for the Office of the Prime Minister said.

“Any new scheme will aim at ensuring that whoever breached the law will have to pay for their actions in a factual manner and that law-abiding citizens are not penalised.”

However, the authority’s proposal now is open to all infringements, unlike the 2013 legal notice that specifically referred to a limited number of cases that could be regularised, from the size of internal yards to the height of floors, for instance.

The scheme could even see people apply to sanction a property built without a permit in the countryside before 1994, or to have an entire illegal floor approved.

Mr Buttigieg acknowledged that the scheme opened the door for these sorts of applications.

However, he said that it was intended for infringements that could not be sanctioned under the current rules.

“If something can be sanctioned, people are likely to go through the normal process because it will be cheaper.

“This option is there for these anomalies which we cannot realistically take action against but which we cannot just leave pending indefinitely,” he said.