Enforcement against infringements in ODZs or scheduled areas and other grave breaches would not be suspended with the introduction of an appeal by the developer, Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg said yesterday.

Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the Mepa reform Bill, Dr Borg said that the appeal procedure from an enforcement notice, as well as that of presenting an application to sanction the illegal development, were used to delay the enforcement of infringement notices.

He said that in the MEPA reform, Parliament should assess which aspects of the system had worked and improve only those aspects which had not functioned well. The determination of applications after 1992 had gained more transparency, providing third parties with information enabling them to participate in procedures.

Transparency had been strengthened through an open and public process allowing third-party interventions.

Over the years, the establishment of Mepa had generated awareness and consciousness of legal development. Before 1992, persons found it easy to develop illegally and the government had put a cut-off date on the sanctioning of these illegal developments. This meant that after 1992, a clear system of enforcement and determination of applications had been put into effect, providing no concessions for illegal development.

Dr Borg considered the new concepts of enforcement that were being proposed in the Mepa reform to be among the most important elements of the Bill. He reiterated that the Bill was the fruit of wide consultation held with the opposition, NGOs, constituted bodies, the Ombudsman and other stakeholders. The Bill also represented amendments that had been proposed in the parliamentary group.

Malta being a small country, not all projects could be agreed to, and enforcement was an important aspect. One would no longer be able to stop an enforcement procedure by presenting an application to sanction illegal developments, which indicated serious breaches of planning regulations. These included illegal developments in scheduled property, in ODZs and in urban conservation areas. This change would not apply retroactively.

The proposed Bill also focused on prevention and did not only prescribe action after the fact. An appeal from Mepa decisions in relation to projects to be developed in ODZs or on scheduled property would suspend the effects of the decision of the commission of first instance.

This would change today's situation where an applicant could take the risk of erecting the development according to the DCC permit and shoulder the responsibility where the Appeals Board revoked such permit. Indirectly this acted as pressure on the Appeals Board and also discouraged objectors. Yet abuse of this system had also been checked in the proposed Bill, and should an appeal not be determined within three months, the suspension would stop. All objectors would now also be notified with the registration of an appeal.

Dr Borg described the Bill as an attack on the creation of delays within planning. The removal of the opportunity to seek a reconsideration from the same persons who had refused the permit was one of the ways in which delays were being dealt with. Yet, the reconsideration procedure would remain available in respect of the conditions imposed in the permit. The possibility of reconsideration as found in the current system reduced trust in the work of the DCC.

The office of the Mepa auditor would be partially integrated within the Ombudsman legislation, thereby removing this office from the planning legal structure. This would also strengthen the position of the officer appointed as a specialised Ombudsman for Mepa purposes. This officer would now be appointed either jointly by agreement between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or, in default, by the Ombudsman. The possibility of a joint appointment of this specialised Ombudsman strengthened the credibility of his office.

Dr Borg referred to the input that had been given by the current government, then in opposition, to the concept of deemed approval of applications where these were not determined within 12 weeks. He noted that on this government's insistence the concept of deemed approval was not applicable to developments in ODZ and scheduled properties, and any such approval was subject to be according to Mepa policy.

Yet this had given rise to problems because there was no organ authorised to issue such permits, and it was for this reason that the law was amended to demand that the Mepa board meet to issue such approval.

Although the past practice of having practising architects processing applications had its advantages, because it also provided architects with experience, at times this could have given rise to perceived irregularities and affected people's trust. The proposed Bill indicated that architects processing applications would now be full-timers.

Concluding, Dr Borg said the Bill envisaged ways and means of cutting down on delays in issuing permits.