The proposed planning authority reform is expected to do away with negotiations between applicants and development board members, something that the audit officer has been insisting on.
However, what would seem to give credence to audit officer Joe Falzon's stance was put into question by the chairman of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Austin Walker, who put the reform proposals into context.
"For years, applicants constantly complained it was difficult to communicate with case officers, so the trend was for them to communicate directly with board members, sometimes even presenting fresh plans during the meetings where decisions were taken. The Prime Minister definitely did not want this and neither did Mepa," Mr Walker said when contacted, defending the proposal included in the reform.
What the audit officer was saying, he added, went beyond what the reform was proposing because Mr Falzon shed doubt over meetings intended to provide information that enabled board members to make better decisions.
Mr Walker questioned the use of words such as "secret", "clandestine" or "private" meetings and asked: "If, as a board member, I would like to better understand the application before me, would it still be illegal if I met the applicant or, for that matter, the objector, during Mepa office hours at the authority's premises where notes are taken?"
Decisions are taken in public hearings, he said, dispelling the notion that these are just a mise en scène.
"From my experience as chairman, anything Mepa does gives rise to suspicion but if we believe board members can be bribed or influenced because they meet applicants they are not fit to sit on the boards in the first place," he said, insisting that anyone with bad intentions did not have to meet during office hours on Mepa premises.
He did, however, posit a solution to distance board members from applicants to ensure greater transparency.
"It might be a better option to have applicants or objectors meet with the liaison officer, who would then relay the information to the planning directorate or the board members," Mr Walker said.
The issue revolves around the acquittal of two former board members of the Development Control Commission in the controversial Mistra case and the court's observation that meetings between applicants and board members were "normal custom".
Mr Falzon insisted such meetings went against planning law, which, he insisted, stipulated that DCC hearings had to be held in public.
A salient point in the Mepa reform blueprint is the increased communication between the applicant and the planning directorate, intended to avoid meetings with DCC board members, who are the ultimate decision-makers. The reform document published earlier in summer stated: "Negotiations between the applicant and the DCC will be forbidden; the applicant's role is to be limited to presenting the proposed development or to provide clarifications if so required by the DCC".
It is envisaged, the document added, that the enhanced dialogue between the applicant/architect and the case officer would mitigate against the need of such discussions at DCC level.