It was only on February 12, 2008, days before the last general election held in March, when Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi pledged that once re-elected he would take over the reform of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority and place it under his wing. The Prime Minister reminded us that the Nationalist Party wanted to put the environment at the core of its policies and was undoubtedly committing himself to address the country’s “environment deficit”.
In the same breath he reminded us that this move was not to be construed as a vote of no confidence in George Pullicino, the then Minister for the Environment. Mr Pullicino will be remembered for the setting up of the Audit Office. Among other considerations, the much awaited local plans were also finalised on his insistence and it was thanks to his direction that all planning decisions, along with supporting justification, may be viewed online.
Yet, on re-election, Mario de Marco was entrusted with the workings of the reform and, to his credit, he made sure to deliver results purporting a more efficient authority.
As of this week, all planning applications shall be subject to a pre-screening process, meaning that within one month, applicants shall have an idea whether their request complies with policy requirements. Environmental planning commissions entrusted with planning decisions are now made up of full-time employees governed by a strict code of ethics.
The new law provides that cases before the commissions can be deferred only once and the next hearing be appointed within 15 days – whereas until recently, applicants were left in the dark and had no idea when the next hearing would be scheduled for.
Needless to say, this mechanism implies more responsibility and commitment on the part of architects who are obliged to react within such restricted timeframes. At the same time, the new system envisages a more efficient one which could possibly yield more negative decisions, which decisions will then be subject to appeal before the newly composed tribunal.
Although many had warned that Mepa should be solely concerned with planning issues, such tribunals cannot move away from the basic principles of good administration within the general principles of natural justice. As with any other tribunal, the chairman of the tribunal, who incidentally is no longer a lawyer, must still ensure that the general principle at law known as the audi alteram partem has to be scrupulously followed. In simple words, a hearing is dispensed with in the presence of both parties (the appellant and the authority), even if this means lengthy procedures.
The chairman must also make sure that appellants cannot be denied access to any part of the application file while any parties are allowed to produce witnesses to have them examined and cross-examined, even if this may mean prolonging the process. Production of evidence must be regulated according to the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and decrees regulating procedural matters are to be delivered accordingly.
Fortunately we live in a legal system which allows us to challenge any planning decision on points of law, while administrative shortcomings may also be challenged before the First Hall Civil Court on the basis of article 469A of the Civil Code. Learned judgements concerning Mepa decisions which are delivered by the Court of Appeal have to be given their due importance, despite the continued insistence that Mepa matters should steer away from legal intricacies.
I wish the new board members well.
Mr Musumeci is a PN mayor and an architect by profession.