MEPA Reform - Issues

Mepa Reform Process: Issues & Concerns
Logistics

The following text is based on comments submitted by one or more periti. If KTP has managed to make any progress with MEPA in resolving this issue, this will be documented in italics below.

Issue no 001
Submitted 26.01.2011
As the possibility for a request for reconsideration has been abolished, periti are required to attend EPC sittings even for run-off-the-mill cases. Sometimes, there is not enough room where to sit.

Reply 15.05.2011
MEPA is looking into providing a room with internet connectivity for use by periti. This should free up space from the boardroom, whilst facilitating better time management for periti.

Issue no 002
Submitted 26.01.2011
The EPC agenda makes no attempt to split the day's case load into say four batches to limit the perit's waiting time. The agenda should be planned so that there will be some slack time at around 1.00 pm, so that the EPC members and the Planning Directorate representatives can have a decent lunch break.

Reply 15.05.2011
MEPA is using this initial period as a trial period on which to base subsequent improvements to the agenda system. At the moment the agenda is simply giving an indication as to the take up time of each application. However the rule being applied is that the applications are heard in the same order as the agenda item.

Issue no 003
Submitted 26.01.2011
The requirement to attend EPC hearings at Marsa implies that part of the waiting time cannot be utilised meeting case officers and other time consuming errands at the Floriana offices. The location is also inconvenient for the Directorate and there have been cases of frenzied dashes for files or other information by the latter's representatives from their Floriana offices.

Reply 15.05.2011
The matter regarding the inconvenient location of the Marsa complex has already been brought to the notice of MEPA by the KTP. The point will be stressed again with MEPA in the hope of finding a solution to the satisfaction of all. See also answers to similar queries below (012, 018, ..)

Issue no 004
Submitted 26.01.2011
It is difficult for periti to drop everying to prepare fresh drawings and reports within five calendar days of an EPC sitting. In one case, a perit was asked to redesign an elevation 130 metres long and engage a mechanical engineer to prepare a fire safety and ventilation report for a major project. Although the perit managed to comply, he had to work past 11pm and pressure the engineer to give the work priority. We can manage this kind of life occasionally but we cannot live like this continuously.

Reply 15.05.2011
KTP brought up this with MEPA and agreement was reached that such period should be extended. In fact LN 57 of 2011 has amended paragraph 11 of the first schedule to the Environment and Development Planning Act 2010 thus allowing cases to be deferred by a maximum of 30 days. Further feedback from periti on whether this is adequate or not would allow the Kamra to discuss further with MEPA.

Issue no 005
The requirement that the EPC only defers a case once places it in an impossible position if the perit misinterprets its instructions or another breach of policy is noted during the deferral. In such cases its only way out is a refusal. Why is a further deferral forbidden when both sides are prepared to accept such a deferral? Why end up with a refusal when another correction would have rendered the proposal acceptable?

Issue no 007
Submitted 26.01.2011
With the introduction of compulsory e-apps, the system for filing complaints has gone haywire. For a complaint to be attended to the perit must speak to the person in possession of the file and request him/her to send it to the complaint's office. Why are complaints not being treated through the e-apps system?

Reply 15.05.2011
The eApps system has simply replaced the postal service or the part of the process until submissions used to be submitted at reception. In the same way that a physical letter used to find itself into the application file, so is any eApps submission. Previous methods of communicating with the Complaints Office remain unchanged. One can either submit a physical correspondence clearly addressed to the office; or contact the office via email or by phone.

Issue no 009
The deferrals are seen at an unspecified time after the agenda is completed. They are seen in the order that appears on a list outside the board room and not in the order listed on the M.E.P.A. website.

Issue no 010
Submitted 26.01.2011
Periti are expected to attend three sittings at more or less time. In order to achieve this feat, I have had to engage my clients to sit and wait in the respective board rooms to advise me of progress while I shuttle between Marsa and Floriana.

Reply 15.05.2011
The Authority has raised this issue with the Tribunal with a view of finding a solution thereby avoiding sittings at conflicting times. Meanwhile should periti continue to experience such clashes they should advise MEPA and the KTP immediately.

Issue no 011
Submitted 06.02.2011
The EPC Meeting Rooms are not suitable for the hearings – I imagine that we will boil to death in summer in the waiting ‘corridor’ (sorry no room) which faces south and is not air-conditioned.

Reply 15.05.2011
This matter has been brought up with MEPA on a number of occasions. MEPA has continued to confirm that no alternative premises are available for such meetings. The KTP will continue to insist on the provision of alternative premises.

Issue no 012
Submitted on 06.02.2011
Periti are encountering major problems at the EPC hearings where a substantial number of hours are being wasted due to the rather open ended agenda times.

In a particular instance a Perit spent 4 hours at the EPC to assist two clients with their applications. One would look forward to having a more streamline schedule with a waiting time of not more than 30 minutes. This can be achieved if an appointment system similar to what was used for re-consideration sittings is adopted.

Issue no 013
Submitted on 06.02.2011
The introduction of Appeal sittings during the same times as EPC sittings is not helping the situation. With the major disruptions in EPC hearings it will not be infrequent that times will clash and unless the EPCs are considerate enough to shift times, Periti will not be in a position to put forward their arguments. Adding insult to injury, EPC boardrooms and Appeal Boardrooms are at different locations and this will further increase inconvenience with respect to travelling times and parking problems.

Reply 15.05.2011
The Authority has raised this issue with the Tribunal with a view of finding a solution thereby avoiding sittings at conflicting times

Issue no 014
Submitted on 06.02.2011
The EPC ‘waiting for your turn’ policy has become a frustrating and time wasting issue. I cannot understand why the previous method (1st come 1st served basis) which was working after all, was scrapped.

Reply 15.05.2011
There are various contrasting views on this issue which has already been brought to MEPA's attention and is still under discussion. In MEPA's opinion, the previous system caused even greater inconvenience as one having a case at the beginning of the agenda would have to wait for other cases to be heard first, when these were scheduled at a later time. This also caused considerable nuisance to third parties wanting to attend the sitting. The EPC are therefore using the same procedure used by the MEPA Board. Nonetheless, the KTP will continue to push form amelioration of the system.

Issue no 015
Submitted on 06.02.2011
During the DCC era, applications used to be heard on a first-come first-served basis. The hearing will continue on the Agenda once the files of all present have been heard. Why are EPC hearings strictly to Agenda? At least each file (or group of files) have to be allocated a time-slot, and if the board is ahead of time they have to wait for the next batch. As the situation stands it is very difficult to calculate the hearing time especially when your file is at the end of the Agenda. Are we expected to waste one or two hours every time we have a hearing?

Reply 15.05.2011
As indicated above the matter has already been brought to the attention of MEPA in the hope of finding a suitable solution.

Issue no 016
Submitted on 06.02.2011
The previous system of Board sessions where the 'first come first served' system was used, was better than the current system as it gave Periti more flexibility to manage their time. No one seemed to be grumbling about that system.

Issue no 017
Submitted on 06.02.2011
Why are appeals being held in the morning? Lawyers are normally unavailable during the morning. To make things worse you can have an EPC hearing as well at the same time!! And we end up like guinea-pigs running from Hexagon house to MEPA and vice-versa, every time wasting time to park.

Reply 15.05.2011
The Authority has raised this issue with the Tribunal with a view of finding a solution thereby avoiding sittings at conflicting times

Issue no 018
Submitted on 06.02.2011
Why are the hearings being held at Hexagon House? This is a very inconvenient situation as we cannot do anything except WASTE TIME till our turn arrives.

Reply 15.05.2011
Space constraints at St. Francis Ravelin and other considerations led MEPA to this decision. Nevertheless the KTP will continue to press MEPA to find alternative premises within or closer to St Francis Ravelin.

Issue no 019
Submitted on 06.02.2011
The new premises for the EPC Boards is very inconvenient for Periti – several Periti are grumbling that they are spending too much unnecessary time waiting to hear an application since no specific time period has been set for the application. The previous system was much more flexible in the sense that the DCC would first hear those applications of the Periti attending the sitting and then continue to hear the remaining applications. In that manner, the time waiting for the application to be heard was much less. Moreover, since the DCC Boards were previously located within MEPA grounds at Floriana, Periti could frequent MEPA premises and use this time period simultaneously for submitting requests for compliance, other submissions, discussing matters with the Planning Directorate, etc. – and thus this time was somehow being utilised efficiently.

Reply 15.05.2011
This issue has already been taken up with MEPA and is being actively discussed in the hope of finding a suitable and satisfactory solution. See answer to Issue nos 012 and 018.

Issue no 020
Submitted on 06.02.2011
The Planning Directorate themselves have a huge hassle to leave the MEPA premises and transport the necessary files to another place. Even further if a relevant file is inadvertently not brought to the new premises (Hexagon House), this cannot be provided within a couple of minutes as in previous situations. These minor mistakes are common to all parties concerned and should be considered insignificant as in previous situations since they could easily be catered for before – however I do not expect the application to be refused now due to insufficient information over which the applicant has no control – one must remember that the EPC can only defer an application once.

Issue no 021
Submitted on 06.02.2011
How did MEPA previously provide space for 3 DCCs and now cannot provide space for just 2 Boards at Floriana?

Reply 15.05.2011
The KTP shares this concern and has brought the matter up with MEPA on a number of occasions. MEPA's response is reproduced in the answere to Issue nos 012 and 018.

Issue no 022
Submitted on 06.02.2011
EPC sittings should be held somewhere central in Valletta for everybody's convenience including lawyers, applicants and objectors.

Reply 15.05.2011
Although a suitable central venue in Valletta would most probably be better than Hexagon House one has to keep in mind that such a solution would still not solve the present problems that a different location from the MEPA head office is currently creating. The KTP shares this concern and has brought the matter up with MEPA on a number of occasions. MEPA's response is reproduced in the answere to Issue nos 012 and 018.

Issue no 023
Submitted on 06.02.2011
Please provide a coffee machine near the Board rooms both for the EPC as well as for the Appeals Board ...

Reply 15.05.2011
MEPA has confirmed that it is looking into providing better facilities at Hexagon House, including a coffee machine and wifi access.