The planning authority is considering the reintroduction of an aesthetics board to assess the style and context of new development, Mepa CEO Johann Buttigieg said yesterday.

Speaking on Times Talk, Mr Buttigieg said the planning authority board was holding “high level” discussions on the possible setting up of the new board. This would ensure that planning applications conformed to the context of the area in which they would be developed.

The government had dismantled the aesthetics board in the mid 1970s, with NGOs, citizens and architects long lamenting its absence.

Mr Buttigieg said he agreed with its reintroduction in principle but had reservations over whether approval of a development by the board should be mandatory.

“I don’t think a development should have to be approved by this board,” he said. He added this should be voluntary, with applicants for development permission given the choice to seek the proposed board’s thumbs up on aesthetics or that of the regular Mepa board. “I think if a proposal is put before the aesthetics board, it shouldn’t have to have its aesthetics approved by the Mepa board too. There should be a choice,” he said, adding that no decision had yet been taken on whether to reintroduce the board or not.

Newly appointed Chamber of Architects president Chris Mintoff said the chamber had already drawn up a similar model that would be obligatory for large projects and voluntary for smaller developments.

This, he said, was based on similar systems used across Europe and would provide a discussion platform in the early stages of the project’s design.

Din L–Art Ħelwa president Simone Mizzi has long lamented the absence of the aesthetics board, saying this was the best way to ensure buildings had a purpose and that this would help combat architectural eyesores.

In the days before the planning authority, building permits had to go through a three-stage process of approval that included the Planning Area Permits Board, the Public Health Department and the Aesthetics Board.

Veteran architects have expressed differing views in the past. Last year established architect André Zammit had put the onus of delivering beauty and functionality on the architect, raising questions over whether style should be imposed.

Richard England, however, had argued that the board needed to be revived. Mepa’s biggest problem, he had said, was its lack of regard for the relationship between a project and its surroundings.