DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL

Carmel Cacopardo has sent you an article from timesofmalta.com.
___________________________________________

(Tuesday, November 10, 2009)
Mistra: Development Planning Act ignored

Author: Carmel Cacopardo, Alternattiva Demokratika, Sliema

A number of correspondents have worked overtime to cloud the issues on the
Mistra case.

As a result the focus of the discussion has been the Mepa Audit Officer when it
should in reality be whether and to what
extent the Development Planning Act permits a resolution of such issues within
Mepa itself.

The basic relevant facts of the Mistra case are the following :

1) the Planning Directorate finalised its report (DPAR) recommending the refusal
of the Mistra application,

2) those with an interest in having an approval of the application sought the
services of the liaison officer, a Mepa
employee with specific terms of remit to liaise with the DCC;

3) the liaison officer, instead of applying the procedures established by the
Development Planning Act, organised a
meeting in which a number of DCC Board members participated;

4) the DCC overturned the decision and approved the issuing of a development
permit;

5) the matter was on the eve of a general election made public by the Leader of
the Opposition;

6) an investigation was carried out by the Mepa Audit Officer as a result of
which the Mepa Board withdrew the permit.

In the discussion as to what went wrong (if at all) during the final stages of
the processing of the Mistra application,
the correspondents overlooked the fact that the Development Planning Act (DPA)
itself provided a clear solution. Article
32A of the DPA (introduced in 2001) provides for the intervention of a planning
mediator. An applicant seeking
development permission may after the conclusion of the application report by the
Director of Planning seek mediation
which shall be provided from a panel of planning mediators appointed by the
minister responsible for development
planning. Obviously the services of a planning mediator will be sought when
there is lack of agreement on the contents
and/or conclusions of the application report as in the Mistra case.

The planning mediator will after considering the matter express an opinion which
is then brought to the attention of the
Mepa Board/DCC which is bound to consider it but is not bound by it.

The planning mediators appointed must be qualified in terms of sub-article
32A(2) of the Development Planning Act: they
shall be versed in planning or in architecture and civil engineering or in any
other discipline relevant to planning.
The liaison officer appointed by Mepa is not versed in any of these disciplines.
In addition his terms of remit
circumvent the provisions of the DPA as they usurp the functions of the planning
mediator.

Notwithstanding that eight years have elapsed since Parliament introduced the
provision on planning mediation in the
DPA, the panel of planning mediators has not to date been appointed. Nor have
the relevant regulations on planning
mediation been drawn up. Two politicians are directly responsible for this state
of affairs: Minister George Pullicino
(2001-8) and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi (2008- ).

In view of the above, in my opinion the meetings attended by the DCC members
behind closed doors to iron out
difficulties arising out of the report prepared by the Director of Planning runs
counter to the procedure for the
resolution of such difficulties established by the DPA itself.

It is very difficult to understand how it is possible to conclude that
everything was done above board when all this was
ignored.

But then, in this blessed land everything is possible.

Mr Cacopardo is a spokesman on sustainable development of Alternattiva
Demokratika and former investigating officer at
the Mepa Audit Office.

___________________________________________

Article may be viewed at:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091110/letters/mistra-development-pl\
anning-act-ignored