The government and the opposition yesterday agreed to suspend the debate in committee on a number of clauses of the Environment and Development Planning Bill to allow both sides time to review an amended opposition proposal made during Tuesday's session.
The clauses refer to part four of the Bill regarding the Structure Plan.
After Tuesday's debate, the opposition amended its proposal in the light of the issues raised by both government and opposition members and presented the amended proposal for consideration.
Following this, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco announced that a number of amendments would be made to the proposed Bill when speaking of structure plans to reflect the committee's debate by including a holistic approach. He also indicated that the amendment would refer to a strategic plan rather than a structural plan.
Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat confirmed that agreement had been reached in principle on the amendments, emphasising that the opposition wanted to have a strategic plan for the environment and development that considers issues related to spatial planning.
He indicated that the term "structure plan" was now outdated and that the change towards a strategic plan required a transitory period, in which he hoped government would finalise an environment policy.
During Tuesday's sitting, Mr Brincat pointed out Mepa did not submit a national plan on spatial planning policies. It merely published submissions it had received from a Mepa Policy Review Committee, chaired by architect David Pace. Among other proposals, this recommended the establishment of a National Spatial Planning Policy.
The committee agreed to an amendment by Roderick Galdes (PL) to Clause 63 (7) so that development orders shall be made and reviewed by the authority after consultation not only with the Chamber of Architects but also the Chamber of Planners.
Speaking on Clause 64 - access to information - Mr Brincat said that the Freedom of Information Act should become in force in its entirety. Also, electronic information should be decentralised and, if need be, accessible at local councils.
Dr de Marco said Mepa had access to environmental information and this clause widens the information. He did not exclude that the electronic information would in future be made available at local council offices.
Environmental and development briefs would replace outline development permits, which have reduced drastically. Dr de Marco said those in force would continue to be respected.
Ċensu Galea (PN) asked what would happen to those applications for outline development permits and Charles Buhagiar said that this clause could prejudice the work of the Land Department of the Joint Office which ask for an outline development permit for evaluating property to be transferred to third parties.
Mr Buhagiar also pointed out that Mepa was asking so much information from applications for outline development permits that architects were opting to apply for full development permits.
Mr Galdes remarked that all decisions regarding outline development permits are made in public. Would environmental and development briefs be decided in public as well? Would there be a public decision on the Delimara power station extension brief? Dr de Marco replied in the affirmative.
The debate continues.