Statistics for 2008 show 3,963 first decisions taken in respect of inside scheme applications and a total of 2,274 first decisions in relation to UCAs and ODZs. Determining an appropriate division of responsibilities for DCCs cannot limit itself to a comparison of workloads; an ODZ or UCA application is more complex than an inside scheme development. On the basis of the number of cases in 2008, a division by zones may result in one DCC having a more significant workload than another DCC. On the other hand, when the complexity of UCAs and ODZs is taken into account, the DCC responsible for these types of developments may be presented with a more onerous burden than the DCC processing inside scheme applications. However, as the government is committed to significantly cut down on development within ODZs, this would leave UCA and inside scheme applications as the major categories hence pointing towards a logical partitioning of DCCs by zone. In the light of the increased complexity associated with UCA and major projects cases, the division by development typology is considered as more appropriate as it ensures a more rigorous assessment of such cases. Consequently, the necessary resources need to be deployed to accommodate workload requirements.
Other options were considered, including a division by geographical area whereby each DCC would be assigned a number of local plans. This proposal effectively means that both DCCs have to be equipped with expertise in the various development types. Moreover, it does not capitalise on the specific expertise which individual DCCs would build under a zoning system. A zoning system is also more conducive to the consistent application of policies as the DCC would process applications of a similar nature on a regular basis.
One of the major problems with the current setup of the DCCs is their part-time nature which inevitably led to DCC members being involved in private practice while holding office on the respective commissions. This motivated a certain degree of criticism.
To counteract such criticism and ensure a more committed team of experts, it is crucial to introduce and enforce an exclusivity clause applicable to all members of the two full-time DCCs. This would ensure that DCC members would be fully dedicated to their function within the respective commissions and do not get involved in any private practice throughout their term of office on the commission.
In order to attract and retain the necessary expertise, a commensurate remuneration package must be provided in order to provide the required pull factor towards Mepa and ensure the abandonment of private practice. It is also being proposed that the term for which members are appointed be increased from three to four years consequently allowing each member to spend a maximum period of eight years in full employment within Mepa. Recognising the fact that integration into the labour market after a period of eight years might pose certain problems, the government is also committed to ensure that such members would be offered a "soft landing" spanning a period of two years following the termination of their position. This is needed to ensure that the right persons are attracted to these full-time positions whilst securing their transitional income as they seek to reintegrate themselves into professional practice.
Operational processes
Provision of time frames for applicants
Mepa is often criticised on the duration of the application process. Mepa is bound by law to take a decision on any application that is within a development boundary as indicated in a local plan within 12 weeks of the validation of the application. When an application does not fall under the above-mentioned criteria, Mepa is bound to take a decision not later than 26 weeks after it has validated the application.
Mepa operates a "chess clock" system, i.e. when external consultations are required with public entities for a particular application the clock is halted and a 30-day period is allowed for response. If no answer is forthcoming, the authority (as stipulated in the DPA) considers the entity to have no objection. Mepa also operates this chess clock system every time it communicates with the client or his/her representative.
Thus, while in the majority of cases Mepa is processing applications within the legal 12/26-week time frame, in reality the process is taking considerably longer with consequent effects on applicant expectations, be they personal or commercial in nature.
In view of the indefinite timeline created by this mechanism, this reform is proposing the elimination of the current chess clock system in favour of creating a process which can anticipate whether the application will be processed within a 12 or 26 calendar week time frame. These timeframes are in line with those proposed in the Development Planning Act (DPA). The allocation of a "due by" date would enable applicants to have a better idea on how to plan their investments whilst ensuring that no leeway is given for loss of time. The proposed system is deemed to facilitate the assignment of a definitive time frame to applicants for a ruling on their application.
The quality of the initial screening process and that of validation represents a critical success factor for the correct determination of applicable deadlines. It is thus crucial that the necessary resourcing be procured in order to provide the adequate capacity for Development Planning Directorate (DPD) to fulfil this function. Notwithstanding, the government's commitment to respect timeframes, the government will consider the possibility of providing for extensions in cases where studies submitted to Mepa in an advanced stage of the application process include recommendations for additional studies to be undertaken. It is in the interest of both the applicant and the government to ensure that all the required studies are carried out prior to the granting of the permit.
Furthermore, the 30-day allocated timeframe for consultation with government entities, prescribed in the DPA, should be enforced. No feedback received by entities will be taken as their deemed approval for the development. This timeframe should also be enforced within Mepa's internal structures; steps will be taken to ensure that the Environment Protection Directorate (EPD) abides by and respects this deadline. The request for feedback is to be issued upon submission of an application and the cut-off date strictly implemented. Feedback received after the lapse of these 30 days will not be considered even if the application has still not been referred to the DCC. This will ensure discipline amongst stakeholders and avoid the risk of a particular stakeholder delaying the whole process. It must be noted that all applications are sent for information purposes to local councils. Local councils can register as interested third parties in terms of their role as "guardians" of the interests of their respective communities.
The two processes - external consultation and the internal processing of the application - are to be carried out in parallel. In some cases, if feedback is received close to the one month deadline and such feedback triggers significant changes to the application, the timeframe communicated to the applicant may not be respected.
In order to promote more efficiency in the internal processing of the application, the government will also encourage increased information sharing across public entities. Securing increased access to information held by other state entities would facilitate the consultation process as Mepa might not need to request and wait for data held by other public entities.
Increasing the availability of information to Mepa will not only improve accessibility for citizens but can also be beneficial to the government. By fostering the sharing of information between Mepa and other government entities, government will avoid unnecessary duplication of work by public entities. Moreover, such information sharing is conducive to fostering a spirit of collaboration across entities. The lack of data interfacing and sharing has often led to an increase in the time required to process certain applications as well as, at times, the duplication of efforts at unnecessary cost. Moreover, it is considered that this action would be in consonance with existing provisions for access to environmental information, as well as, with government's proposals for a legislative instrument aimed at securing freedom of information.
Provision of an efficient redress mechanism
Mepa currently provides two opportunities for redress by the applicant. An applicant can choose to ask for a "reconsideration" prior to resorting to redress through the planning appeals board. The right for an applicant to appeal to a decision made by a DCC is entrenched in the Development Planning Act. The reconsiderations process is an additional process, whereby the Development Planning Application Report (DPAR) is sent back to the case officer and another hearing is scheduled with the DCC.
Essentially this process, if availed of in full, means that the same application will be brought to the same DCC twice. On the other hand, when the applicant lodges an appeal, the application will be discussed by a different team of experts - different in composition, as well as, in expertise. While the DCC is composed of officials who hold a more technical-oriented expertise, mainly in the planning sector, the planning appeals board is more legal in nature and therefore approaches its decision-making function with a different forma mentis. This essentially means that the judgment of the DCC and the planning appeals board may vary resulting in a potential lack of coherence in decision-making.