CIRCULAR MEPA

Planning Directorate
Changes to the Development Planning Application Process
01. Introduction

Following a thorough review of the Development Planning Application Process a number of changes are being introduced to the current Development Planning Application process with a view to expedite the process of processing the majority of applications. Such changes involve the organisation of the Development Control Section into self-sustaining Cells responsible for the entire application process. In this manner, each application will be dealt with from within the Cell from its point of entry up to its referral for a decision and subsequent monitoring and enforcement. This procedure is seen as increasing individual accountability and reducing queuing time. Three Cells have been set up, each including a number of subsets, namely: o o o Cell A responsible for ODZ and UCA applications Cell B responsible for Within Scheme applications Cell C responsible for Major Projects

The following is the proposed DC new structure

Page 1

Amendments to the current system include the requirement that the Directorate communicates with the architect: o o in those instances where changes made to the proposed development will result in a positive recommendation; or whenever the architect feels the need to.

Following this DCC Boards are required to take a decision based on a complete report from the Case Officer. A more rigorous approach to the vetting procedure will be applied, with the enforcement of Circular 8/02 These changes shall come into effect on Wednesday 5 July 2006. A seminar is also being organised by MEPA and the Chamber of Architects to explain further these changes on this date.

02.

Communications with Applicant / Architect

The new operational structure is intended to foster dialogue between the architect (deemed to be representing the Client) and the Directorate. This is deemed important in order to ensure a wider level of consultation. The system envisages that it should be the Cell that resolves all matters relating to the application including the necessary negotiations with the applicant. The system to be adopted is as follows: o Queries of a general nature will be dealt with by a technical team who will provide assistance and act as a front-office for the Development Control. This will act as a filter for the Cells and thus only those queries which need to be referred to the Cells will be forwarded. Following the initial assessment of the case and the receipt of the consultees feedback, the case officer is to communicate in writing with the architect in those instances where changes made in the proposed development will result in a positive recommendation. This however does not preclude the architect from referring to the Directorate whenever he deems necessary. Failure by the Case Officer to carry out the necessary communications will result in an incomplete DPA report o o o Such letter will be copied to the applicant. The architect will be given a period of three weeks to reply. If no response is forthcoming by the end of second week, the applicant/architect will be contacted at the end of the second week, by telephone call/email reminder to remind him of three week deadline. During this three week period the architect may request a meeting with the Team Manager of the Cell responsible for the application. Should the architect feel that he may need an extension, he should inform MEPA in writing. Application shall be deemed to be withdrawn as outlined in Article 32 (6) of the Development Planning Act. Failure to reply within the three weeks or to request an extension will mean that the Case Officer will proceed with the recommendation.

o o o o

Page 2

A copy of the DPAR will be submitted to the architect for his comments. The DPAR should contain a record of all the communication carried out with the architect and the outcomes resulting. A months time is given to reply, following which the application will be referred to MEPA Board or the respective DCC for a decision.

03.

DCC Required to take a decision

The current state of affairs is characterised by more and more applications being the subject of direct negotiations between the DCC Board and the applicant during the applications scheduled sitting. Because of such negotiations, decisions on applications are often deferred meaning that the file is put on the agenda of the Board several times. This in turn gives rise to delays in the processing of the application. In the proposed system, it is envisaged that all negotiations are to be conducted within the Cell and shall be documented and referred to the DCC as accompanying notes to the DPAR. Hence an application will only be considered by the DCC when it is deemed that the DPAR is complete. The report of the Case Officer is considered complete when it includes all the relevant information and where the relevant communications (as explained in 1 above) are carried out. Moreover, Cells, and their members of staff, will be monitored for compliance to such procedures. The DCC process is outlined as follows: o The Team Manager is to be present to provide technical assistance to the DCC whenever necessary. The Team Manager also has the responsibility to report back to the Cell any feedback from the DCC. The DCC Boards are required to take a decision, whenever the report from the Case Officer is complete. If the DCC Board considers the report by the Case Officer to be incomplete, it should send it back to the Cell. The Board should not attempt to address any deficiencies in the DPA report. The Board should only ask for more information or amendments to the application in exceptional cases. Only in exceptional cases should there be deferrals. The Board should not allow amendments to be effected to proposal, if the case officer requested these amendments during processing. Overturning by DCC of a recommendation by a Case Officer should be properly justified and recorded in file with appropriate minutes. The vote taken on an application should be recorded on file.

o o

o o

Furthermore the following procedures shall be enforced with greater vigour:

o
o

04.

Vetting of Development Applications

The vetting of the development permit applications is a crucial step in the application process. Incomplete and incorrect applications accepted by the vetters will mean that these applications will be forwarded to the Case Officers for the technical assessment and a lot of time is wasted gathering and correcting information which should have been verified at the Vetting stage. A more rigorous approach to Vetting to ensure better quality of applications will be adopted by the Directorate namely: o The checklist outlined in Circular 8/02 will be applied.

Page 3

05.

Additional Changes Introduced

The abovementioned changes are being made in conjunction with other important changes in the processing of applications. Such changes include: o o All consultations will be sent out immediately as soon as the application is duly validated. The 30 day time limit which is provided in legislation for consultees will be strictly adhered to. This will thus ensure that the unwillingness or inability of other agencies to give feedback within the stipulated timeframe, will not delay the processing of applications unnecessarily consequently offering the opportunity for a timelier decision making framework.

The aforementioned changes are but a first in a series of improvements that are being undertaken within MEPA. MEPA wishes to take the opportunity to show its appreciation to a number of stakeholders in particular, UPAP, UHM, KTP and Users Committee for their assistance and feedback. It is augured that architects will respond positively to such changes and that applications will be processed in a timelier manner. This circular is intended for information purposes and only is not intended to form part of any policy statement.

Andrew Calleja Chairman Malta Environment and Planning Authority

Page 4