Visiting the MEPA offices to view planning applications and their relevant documents is a thing of the past. Today, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority launched a new online service for the public to start viewing these documents free of charge.
The Authority also unveiled plans for the complete overhaul of the 1994 Development Planning (Use Classes) Order to render it more pertinent to address today’s realities with less bureaucratic procedures.
Introducing the launch of this new online service MEPA CEO, Dr Ian Stafrace said, “This new service is another milestone for the Authority. The Mepa Reform was always about radically improving efficiency and the interface between the Authority, its customers and the public. This project has been made possible, ever since we introduced the practice amongst architects, that all planning applications have to be submitted electronically.
“The only requirement is an internet connection and an e-ID registration, which can be obtained by any Maltese citizen and is an easy, straightforward procedure. All details of the proposed development will be included in the online version of the planning application document, enabling the public to analyse any proposed development in detail, ensuring a more transparent and efficient service offered by MEPA. For a document to be viewed online it would have had to be submitted after 31st May 2012.
“The public can also view all correspondence between MEPA and its consultees online, these include proposed plans of elevations and sections and any objections that are registered against the proposed development.”
The Authority also unveiled its plans for the Development Planning (Use Classes) Order of 1994 to be replaced with a new and revised Order. Dr Stafrace pointed out that “this development planning legislation, which basically, groups uses with similar land use and environmental impacts together into Classes, was not managing to address today’s realities.
“We are proposing that this revised Classes Order will, in a number of cases, remove the need for a full development permit when the proposed change of use is perceived to have less of a land use and environmental impact than what is already permitted on site.”
He continued “For example we are proposing that Food and Drink outlets (Class 6), through a simple notification, will be able to change to retail facilities without the need to submit a full development application for a change of use. We also intend to simplify procedures for shifts between different types of floorspace within shopping and business complexes and change of uses from shops to offices and offices to dwellings amongst others.”
“The Authority is proposing to increase the number of Use Classes, to better regulate the change of use of certain development whose land use and environmental impact is much greater than what is permitted on site. The 1994 Classes Order does not distinguish between a showroom and a supermarket (Class 4) or between a school and a day nursery (Class 8).
“So a planning application to evaluate the scale and consequent potential impact between one and the other was never carried out, as a change of use falling within the same class order did not require a permit.”
The public can view the proposed changes to the 1994 Classes Order by visiting the MEPA website www.mepa.org.mt/public-consultation [1].
The public is invited to submit its comments and suggestions through email address classesorder@mepa.org.mt [2] by the 16th January 2013.
Dr Stafrace added that “these two initiatives build on other MEPA reform initiatives taken to date.” These include:
the removal of the so called “chess clock system” and the introduction of strict deadlines for the processing of applications;
the setting up of two full time Environment and Planning Commissions to replace the three part-time Development Control Commissions;
the setting up of an Enforcement Directorate;
the setting up of a full-time Environment and Planning Review Tribunal to replace the part-time MEPA Appeals Board;
the introduction of a screening process to weed out major concerns at the earliest stage of the application process;
the lengthening of the consultation period from fifteen days to twenty days;
notice of planning applications are being displayed on notice-boards in all localities;
neighbours living next to a site earmarked for development receive a notification chit advising them that an application has been submitted; and,
the publication of all decisions taken by the Environment and Planning Commissions.
Dr Starfrace continued, “These initiatives shortened considerably the time taken for MEPA to process a planning application. A decision on an application for a development within scheme is delivered within 78 days of the application being submitted. In 2009, the average time for the same type of decision was 222 days.
“The reform process also reduced the back-log of cases waiting for a decision. From 4100 in 2010, the caseload now stands at just 1600 cases which in effect can be considered more as work-in-progress than an actual backlog.
“Speeding up the decision process was not done at the expense of the quality of the decisions delivered. To the contrary, it is an acknowledged fact that the decisions taken by the Commissions today show a higher degree of consistency. In fact, 97% of the applications that received a favourable screening letter where in fact eventually approved by the Environment and Planning Commissions.
“In taking such decisions, MEPA affords the highest protection to the built and natural environment. Several eNGO’s have commented favourable on the positive effect that the MEPA reform process had on safeguarding our built and natural heritage.”
MEPA concluded that it “also became more open and transparent in its operations. Besides introducing measures to strengthen the role of consultees during the application and policy reform process, MEPA high officials meet regularly with eNGOs, Kamra tal-Periti and the Press.
“The MEPA reform process is producing the desired results in that it is rendering MEPA more efficient, more consistent and more accountable in its decision-taking process.”