MEPA Reform - Issues

Mepa Reform Process: Issues & Concerns
Planning Procedures and Policies

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 009
Submitted 26.01.2011
Why is a screening process required for renewal of Development Permits?

Reply 15.05.2011
If renewal permissions were an automatic right, there would be no need to apply. Renewal applications still need to be assessed in terms of latest approved policy, whilst taking into consideration the commitment on site. The applicant should still be entitled to screening of the application prior to paying the relevant fees.

Issue no 010
Submitted 26.01.2011
It seems that the legal counsel has acquired the power to determine applications as Board and Commission members will not dare challenge his interpretation. He has even directed that an application to renew an outline application presented before the coming into force of the new law cannot be entertained.

Reply 15.05.2011
This position is based on the interpretation of the condition of outline permit which obliged the applicant to submit a full development application within the term of the outline, thereby excluding the possibility of a renewal of an outline permit.

Issue no 001
Submitted 13.02.2011
Re compliance certificates - the attitude taken by some enforcement officers is simply not on. They seem to be intent on refusing to issue the certification without indicating clearly the reason for such refusal. Applicants are informed by the Officer, and the Perit has to call for consecutive days at MEPA trying to get hold of the relative Enforcement Officer to identify what was deemed unacceptable. MEPA should either allow a time where Enforcement Officers are available for discussion or engage an Officer to take care of such meetings giving feedback to the Enforcement Officers whenever necessary. One should note that with the increase in cost of such compliance certificates, applicants are frustrated when they are asked to resubmit a fresh request for compliance.

Issue no 002
Submitted on 13.02.2011
Re compliance certificates – I sincerely hope that MEPA, in its urge to re-coup the income lost from the termination of Government subsidies, does not embark on an attitude that will lead to unnecessary duplication of charges on applicants. I refer particularly to the issuing of compliance certificates which are now being charged at €60. It is imperative that prior to refusing an application for a compliance certificate, the Enforcement Officer involved takes due time to appreciate whether any changes in a particular area of a development would effect the compliance under consideration.

Issue no 003
Submitted on 13.02.2011
Re compliance certificates – Sometimes a compliance certificate on part of a development is rejected, for example, because the particular development is not fully constructed. This essentially means that if one buys a garage in a particular development and the developer goes bankrupt and does not complete the development, this particular garage cannot be made use of.

Issue no 004
Submitted 13.02.2011
Re minor amendments - although the officer from MEPA’s side is giving his outmost to be as practical and as helpful as possible, approved minor amendments are sometimes getting stuck at the Sanitary Engineering Officer who refuses, without even considering contacting the Perit to adjust some minor alteration or worse still to explain the drawings following his own misunderstandings. This would mean a re-application, waste of resources and time and added costs to applicants.

The SEO was called to attend the last Procedures Commission meeting and the KTP had the opportunity to discuss with him a number of issues. Although the issue reported above was touched upon it is being again referred to MEPA for a formal response in writing.

Issue no 005
Submitted on 13.02.2011
The Planning Authority is now making itself conspicuous by a rigorous absence of any 'Planning'. Development control is not planning. Planning is not reactive, but proactive. If the Local Plan policies are not good enough for the Boards to apply them, then there should be serious planning exercises to change them. Where are the workshops to discuss these policies? Where is the public participation in the formulation of the policies? Is the much vaunted transparency limited to the application process? Is there envisaged to be any transparency in the planning process proper?

The KTP agrees that 'planning' should be taken more seriously and that it should be a process that leads to an improvement in our built environment and to quality in design.

The above comment is being submitted to MEPA in the hope of getting their reaction.

Issue no 006
Submitted on 13.02.2011
The EPC members are new to the game and do not seem to be well prepared. In the first meeting I attended, I tried to appeal to common sense, but I was bluntly told that only the law prevailed although, to their credit, the members admitted that a number of MEPA policies needed revision. So it seems the cart was put before the horse. All MEPA does when it announces some reform, is to change its wolf's clothing, but intrinsically it remains the same; more often than not it gets worse. The increase in bureaucracy is sickening. This e-apps business could have waited; there are much more important things that need seeing to at MEPA. If MEPA itself knows that the policies are outdated why do they not revise them first, before anything else?

A MEPA Policies Commission has been set up and the KTP has nominated its representative on this Commission. Unfortunately, up to date the Commission has not met.

The above comment is being referred to MEPA and to the KTP representative on the Policies Commission.

Issue no 007
Submitted on 13.02.2011
Some policies clash with the Health and Safety Regulations - this can have dangerous results; e.g. why is not a 4 course high 'opra morta' allowed on a penthouse roof? I brought this point up once at a DCC meeting and was told that only maintenance work was carried out on a penthouse roof. So it is all right to fall to your death as long as you are doing maintenance work; and workers get preferential treatment to be first on the list.

Issue no 008
Submitted on 13.02.2011
On a positive note, MEPA has now realised the importance of saving water and seems to have decided to enforce the long standing regulation requiring the provision of rainwater cisterns.