At a press conference held earlier this week, Environment Minister George Pullicino announced significant changes to the Development Planning Act, a move that some may see as being “too little, too late” but which is being embraced by environmentalists as “better late than never”.

With its proposed amendments to the DPA, the Nationalist Government is finally taking the bull by the horns on a few of the many outstanding environmental issues.

Permits to demolish heritage properties or to build in the countryside will no longer be implemented during the 30-day period during which appeals may be submitted.

This was a situation that was exposed in the case of the Sliema Baroque House that was bulldozed while an appeal was underway, making a positive outcome at appeal a very hollow victory.

The Appeals Board will now have three months in which to reach a decision, failing which work can go ahead. This is fair on developers, who cannot be expected to wait indefinitely, but whether the Appeals Board will deliver the goods on time remains to be seen.

While this amendment is a very positive one, the devil lies in the details. The wording of the Act specifies that the buildings to be protected are to be “scheduled property Grade 1 or Grade 2”, but when one considers that a monument such as Villa Bologna has not been scheduled (legally protected) yet, one wonders how many buildings will, in fact, be protected before Mepa pulls its socks up and shows some real commitment to heritage by speeding up its scheduling process.

In a much-needed move, the extension of the “representation period”, during which members of the public can object, has been extended from two weeks to 20 working days. The previous “blink and you miss it” situation was exacerbated by the fact that the famous two-week green site notices on buildings to be demolished often disappeared as quickly as they were put up, leaving neighbours oblivious to the impending work. The solution being proposed is the placing of large notice-boards for countryside projects and notification by registered mail of a minimum of 10 neighbours in respect of urban work, a remedy that would seem reasonable to all but the developers’ lobby, which is apparently inflamed by such measures.

The last and possibly most significant change is the pledge written into the amendments to give the public greater access to environmental information, a facility which, one must underline, is no concession but an established right prescribed by EU regulations.

Our information-starved citizens will now be given a second round of consultation on changes being proposed to plans such as Local Plans. This is in response to a verdict given by the Ombudsman on the Mellieha changes, as well as the controversy that surrounded the handling of the Rationalisation plans.

The public will also be granted access to important documents such as Environment Impact Assessments, but the most powerful tool being given to the public is not a DPA amendment but the inclusion of the public in Mepa’s e-application system.

Although the details of this system of access to Mepa’s files was not fully explained, at the press conference the minister announced that members of the public will be able to access the system online in order to view plans submitted by architects from the comfort of their own homes.

This is light years away from the situation of just a few years ago, when the public could only glimpse plans of neighbouring developments by engaging an architect to accompany them to Mepa.

It is known that a Thursday meeting between the Prime Minister and the developers, represented by the GRTU, degenerated into an inflamed and acrimonious affair. The developers have vowed to do everything within their power to stamp out any hope of the public winning any rights that might negatively impact upon their interests.

There is no doubt that they have already started exerting pressure on Members of Parliament, Nationalists included. George Pullicino has done his bit and it is now up to the rest of his party to support him, and up to the whole of Parliament to make a choice as to whether they truly represent the people or the vested interests of a powerful minority.