The Chamber of Architects is challenging the planning authority to say which policy set maximum plot depths at 30 metres and insists that policies are being changed without consultation.

Chamber president Stephen Farrugia stressed when contacted that the contents of a circular issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority at the beginning of the month included a new policy about which there should have been consultation.

“This is a new policy and not a clarification of an existing policy as Mepa said. I challenge Mepa to say which policy laid down 30 metres as a maximum plot depth. It’s positive that we define policies but this is a new policy,” he said when contacted.

Mr Farrugia was contacted after Mepa told a press conference last week that the circular it issued included no new policies but a clarification of an existing policy that was being misinterpreted.

Malta Developers Association president Sandro Chetcuti too insisted this was a new policy and accused the regulator of “shifting the goalposts”.

“This decision will negatively affect many of my members. We cannot have the authority changing things halfway through. There are members who had already committed themselves,” he said.

However, a Mepa spokesman again denied that any policies had been changed or introduced and stood by what the top officials said last week that the circular was simply clarifying a policy that was being misinterpreted.

“Nothing has changed. The main reason for the publication of the circular was to bring to the forefront a renewed focus on these policies and not to amend a policy,” he said.

Reacting to claims of lack of consultation, the spokesman said that although Mepa “is not compelled to conduct consultations” when it feels that a clarification and/or interpretation of existing policies is needed, a copy of the draft circular was provided to the Chamber of Architects a month before it was issued.

Subsequently, at a meeting held with Mr Farrugia on April 8, no objections to the circular’s contents were raised, he added.

We cannot have the authority changing things halfway through. There are members who had already committed themselves

Asked about this, Mr Farrugia admitted that the e-mail “could have been missed” but insisted that sending an e-mail was not a way to consult. “The e-mail could have been missed but that’s not the point. An e-mail with a new policy is not what I call consultation. We are Mepa’s preferred clients because we then pass this information to our client,” he said.

Mr Chetcuti said changing policies led to uncertainty in the industry. “Had we been consulted, we would have made proposals to make it a win-win situation. We had, and still have, a remedy that Mepa would have probably accepted.” He doubted whether the change in policy was legal and he believed that applicants would win their case if they challenged it.

Mr Farrugia said that, thanks to the mediation of Environment Ombudsman David Pace, his calls for structured meetings with Mepa to discuss policy issues would be starting soon. He said the chamber had been asking Mepa for such meetings for the past five or six months but to no avail.

Mepa said monthly meetings would enhance the collaboration between the two organisations.