By its very own nature urban planning is an interactive process which brings together a number of stakeholders having different views, opinions and legitimate interests. Planning policies are often broad enough to permit multiple solutions. Thus the planning process must reflect this nature which is entrenched within the planning profession and encourage and foster dialogue between the Authority and stakeholders. It needs to be understood that immovable assets, particularly land values, hold a high premium in Malta. Consequently, one understands that developers would try to exploit this land to its maximum potential. On the other hand, developers must be aware that Malta's urban fabric needs to be preserved and enhanced. The extent of this fine balance may not always be clear, requiring discussion between the applicant and his representative and the authority.
Applicants and commissioned architects request information from Mepa case officers on a regular basis throughout the application process. While acknowledging that it is the case officer's duty to engage with the respective applicant and the community, it is also necessary that this process is managed in a way that maximises the use of resources while providing value. This dialogue needs to be present and both the case officer and the applicant/architect/community need to observe a certain code of ethics and values. The government believes that this dialogue should positively contribute towards the planning process and at the same time should pay dividends through a lower number of reconsiderations and appeals.
To this end, the government will reform the current development application process in order for it to allow for increased dialogue between the applicant and Mepa. An initial screening process will be introduced which will enable the applicant (and client architect) to hold discussions with the unit manager prior to the submission of an application. Moreover, case officers will be encouraged to hold meetings with applicants, who have submitted their application, during the Development Planning Application Report (DPAR) formulation stage.
Even the concept of validation will need to be modified. Validation should only come into effect when all the required documentation, studies and collateral have been submitted to the authority by the applicant or his architect. The screening process is intended to facilitate this issue as the initial screening will highlight both the administrative and technical compliance issues that would need to be addressed for the application to be considered as complete and ready to undergo full analysis. It is only fair to expect Mepa to complete the processing of an application within a prescribed timeframe once it has been given all the information it requires by the applicant or his architect to conduct the evaluation of the application. To this effect, validation, and the issuing of a "PA number" at the front desk, will no longer continue to follow current practice. Upon submission of an application, the architect and his client will be given a tracking number which will continue to identify an application until it is validated, where it will be given what is today known as the "PA number". The timelines for decision-making can only be communicated to the architect and the applicant at that stage.
Upon submission, the consultation notices to the government departments and agencies will be issued and the technical and administrative screening will be undertaken. Any anomalies will be communicated to both the architect and the applicant such that all parties are informed and responsibilised as to the actions that need to be taken. It will no longer be permitted for Mepa to bear the consequences of delays resulting from the actions of others.
Figure 2 illustrates the main stages of the proposed development application process. At the initial screening stage, the unit manager would screen the application and classify it as either straightforward or complex. As a second step, the unit manager would also advise the applicant on potential amendments that could be made so as to render the application straightforward and thus for it be processed in a shorter timeframe. If an application is deemed to constitute a potential major project, the unit manager would notify the applicant and pass on such application for initial screening to a team of higher officials. The initial screening of major projects would be carried out by a panel of high officials which would include the director of planning, the director of environment protection and the unit manager of the Major Projects Unit. This team would hold discussions with the applicant with a view to determine the magnitude of the project, establish whether it requires an EIA and/or other studies and communicate to the applicant and client's architect the studies which would be required and a timetable detailing the application and decision-making process. In this way, at the outset, an applicant would have a Mepa-wide view of his application and know what criteria are required to satisfy the planning and environmental requirements related to the project.
It is appropriate at this stage to quantify the various routes and their associated timeframes which may result from the operations that will characterise the development application process. Two main types of applications can result, namely those falling inside and outside scheme. The screening process referred to earlier is intended, albeit on a voluntary basis, to assist the applicant in arriving at a solution which respects prevailing policy. Those who opt for the screening process and develop an application which is in line with such policies will obviously go down the straightforward route during the processing stage. Those who fail to go through the screening process or who insist on points of policy which prima facie are contentious will go down the complex route. All timelines are assumed from the stage when an application is validated.
After the initial screening discussions have been concluded and applications are submitted, the unit manager(s) would assign the caseload to the case officers who in turn are tasked with the formulation of the DPAR. This reform proposes that each application will entitle the applicant, through his architect, to the allocation of a fixed number of hours to be granted to each applicant, with extra hours being provided at a charge for the purposes of consultation. The meetings between the applicant or architect and the case officer are to be minuted and included as collateral material to accompany the DPAR to be presented to the DCC so as to demonstrate the extent of dialogue achieved and the modus operandi that was employed during the process.
The importance of the initial screening process, together with the increased dialogue during the DPAR formulation stage, cannot be emphasised enough; securing an appropriate degree of discussion between the case officer and the client improves understanding of Mepa policies and minimises potential problems at the decision-making stage. Case officers need to have a sense of ownership for the applications assigned to them; only in this way can their attitude be one driven to guide applicants to submit an application which stands a good chance of securing approval.
In addition, the current practice wherein the case officer sends the final DPAR to the client's architect allowing 30 days for his feedback, prior to submission to the DCC, will be maintained. Mepa will ensure that all correspondence directed towards the client's architect would also be sent to the applicant; this enables the latter to monitor progress made by both Mepa and the architect. The architect's comments to the DPAR would also be included as collateral material to be presented to the DCC. A 30-day timeframe may appear quite lengthy. However, an adequate timeframe needs to be allowed to ensure a fair opportunity is provided. It is envisaged that once the measures that provide for a better dialogue between the case officer, the applicant and the architect during the initial stages of the application process are implemented, architects would not necessarily need this 30-day feedback mechanism or would submit their feedback in a shorter period.