8/2/2019 cir1 of 2006

1/4

Page 1

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 ofchanges are being introduced to the current Development Planning Application process with aview to expedite the process of processing the majority of applications. Such changes involvethe organisation of the Development Control Section into self-sustaining Cells responsible forthe entire application process. In this manner, each application will be dealt with from withinthe Cell from its point of entry up to its referral for a decision and subsequent monitoring andenforcement. This procedure is seen as increasing individual accountability and reducingqueuing time.

Three Cells have been set up, each including a number of subsets, namely:

o Cell A responsible for ODZ and UCA applications

o Cell B responsible for Within Scheme applications

o Cell C responsible for Major Projects

The following is the proposed DC new structure

8/2/2019 cir1 of 2006

2/4

Page 2

Amendments to the current system include the requirement that the Directorate

communicates with the architect:o in those instances where changes made to the proposed development will result in a

positive recommendation; or

o whenever the architect feels the need to.

Following this DCC Boards are required to take a decision based on a complete report fromthe Case Officer.

A more rigorous approach to the vetting procedure will be applied, with the enforcement ofCircular 8/02

These changes shall come into effect on Wednesday 5 July 2006. A seminar is also beingorganised by MEPA and the Chamber of Architects to explain further these changes on thisdate.

02. Communications with Applicant / Architect

The new operational structure is intended to foster dialogue between the architect (deemed tobe representing the Client) and the Directorate. This is deemed important in order to ensurea wider level of consultation. The system envisages that it should be the Cell that resolves allmatters 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 provideassistance and act as a front-office for the Development Control. This will act as a filterfor the Cells and thus only those queries which need to be referred to the Cells will beforwarded.

o 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 wherechanges made in the proposed development will result in a positive recommendation.This however does not preclude the architect from referring to the Directorate wheneverhe deems necessary.

Failure by the Case Officer to carry out the necessary communications will result in anincomplete DPA report

o Such letter will be copied to the applicant.

o The architect will be given a period of three weeks to reply.

o If no response is forthcoming by the end of second week, the applicant/architect will becontacted at the end of the second week, by telephone call/email reminder to remindhim of three week deadline.

o During this three week period the architect may request a meeting with the TeamManager of the Cell responsible for the application.

o Should the architect feel that he may need an extension, he should inform MEPA inwriting.

o Application shall be deemed to be withdrawn as outlined in Article 32 (6) of theDevelopment Planning Act.

o Failure to reply within the three weeks or to request an extension will mean that theCase Officer will proceed with the recommendation.

8/2/2019 cir1 of 2006

3/4

Page 3

o A copy of the DPAR will be submitted to the architect for his comments. The DPARshould contain a record of all the communication carried out with the architect and theoutcomes resulting. A months time is given to reply, following which the application willbe 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 subjectof direct negotiations between the DCC Board and the applicant during the applicationsscheduled sitting.Because of such negotiations, decisions on applications are often deferred meaning that thefile is put on the agenda of the Board several times. This in turn gives rise to delays in theprocessing of the application.

In the proposed system, it is envisaged that all negotiations are to be conducted within theCell 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 iscomplete. The report of the Case Officer is considered complete when it includes all therelevant information and where the relevant communications (as explained in 1 above) arecarried out. Moreover, Cells, and their members of staff, will be monitored for compliance tosuch procedures.

The DCC process is outlined as follows:

o The Team Manager is to be present to provide technical assistance to the DCCwhenever necessary. The Team Manager also has the responsibility to report back tothe Cell any feedback from the DCC.

o The DCC Boards are required to take a decision, whenever the report from the CaseOfficer is complete.

o If the DCC Board considers the report by the Case Officer to be incomplete, it shouldsend it back to the Cell. The Board should not attempt to address any deficiencies inthe DPA report.

o The Board should only ask for more information or amendments to the application inexceptional cases. Only in exceptional cases should there be deferrals.

o The Board should not allow amendments to be effected to proposal, if the case officerrequested these amendments during processing.

Furthermore the following procedures shall be enforced with greater vigour:o Overturning by DCC of a recommendation by a Case Officer should be properly justif ied

and recorded in file with appropriate minutes.o The vote taken on an application should be recorded on file.

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 theseapplications will be forwarded to the Case Officers for the technical assessment and a lot oftime is wasted gathering and correcting information which should have been verified at theVetting stage.

A more rigorous approach to Vetting to ensure better quality of applications will be adopted bythe Directorate namely:

o The checklist outlined in Circular 8/02 will be applied.

8/2/2019 cir1 of 2006

4/4

Page 4

05. Additional Changes Introduced

The abovementioned changes are being made in conjunction with other important changes inthe processing of applications. Such changes include:

o All consultations will be sent out immediately as soon as the application is dulyvalidated.

o

The 30 day time limit which is provided in legislation for consultees will be strictlyadhered to. This will thus ensure that the unwillingness or inability of other agencies togive feedback within the stipulated timeframe, will not delay the processing ofapplications unnecessarily consequently offering the opportunity for a timelier decisionmaking framework.

The aforementioned changes are but a first in a series of improvements that are beingundertaken within MEPA. MEPA wishes to take the opportunity to show its appreciation to anumber of stakeholders in particular, UPAP, UHM, KTP and Users Committee for theirassistance and feedback. It is augured that architects will respond positively to such changesand 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 anypolicy statement.

Andrew CallejaChairmanMalta Environment and Planning Authority