Decisions will be taken in the next few weeks and months that will shape how we, as a nation, will make use of our land resources.

When we talk about planning systems it is useful to compare two extremes, even if any system is somewhere between these two extremes.

There is, on the one hand, the “rigid” planning system where what is required of the development in terms of use and building form is clearly defined in plans. Highly prescriptive policies are strictly adhered to. The advantage of a “rigid” system is that it provides certainty as to what can be developed and hence people will be able to make more informed investment decisions. The downside is that it does not adapt to changing economic and social circumstances. It gives rise to situations where proposed developments which are beneficial to society are refused simply because they do not conform to some rigid policy or master plan.

At the other extreme, there is the “flexible” system where policies provide a generic framework but limited detailed guidance. Decisions on development applications are taken almost on a case-by-case basis. The advantage is that decisions are based on a proper assessment of the likely benefits and impacts of the proposed development, without being unduly constrained with restrictive detail in the planning policy. This ensures that any eventual benefits to the community are maximized. A flexible system is more likely to result in quality development provided there is a proper assessment and that the responsible authority is willing to negotiate with the applicant.

The disadvantage of excessive flexibility is the uncertainty for developers and investors. It requires skilled professionals within Mepa so that proposed development can be properly assessed and eventually an appropriate decision taken within a reasonable time.

In 1992, the Maltese planning system went through a radical overhaul. The new system was based on the British system, which was (and still is) a system that weighs heavily towards flexibility. Initially in Malta, development applications were assessed primarily on the basis of Structure Plan policies, which in most cases provide only a generic guidance. This resulted in a significant level of flexibility. As time passed, concerns were expressed that the new system did not provide certainty for investment decisions. Architects were having difficulties providing reliable advice to their clients.

On the other hand, many developers saw the “flexibility” component of policy as an opportunity, or even as a loophole in policy, to maximise on the development of a site. In many cases, this was done to the detriment of the quality of development. Another downside of “flexibility” is that perceptions of wrongdoing or even corruption will more easily take root. For people without a technical background in planning, the concept of flexibility in policy is not easy to comprehend and hence allegations of wrongdoing are made.

One would also need to distinguish between the policy as intended and the policy as eventually interpreted and used. Although a policy as worded allows a certain level of flexibility, over time Mepa case officers started interpreting policies in a narrow and rigid manner.

The policy relating to internal developments, for example, includes both qualitative and quantitative criteria. Only quantitative criteria were considered and qualitative criteria were virtually ignored (resulting in poor design quality of internal developments).

The interpretation of policy in a “flexible” planning system requires competent planners with a wide range of skills including abilities to interpret planning policy, to negotiate with applicants and to communicate effectively.

There are planners within Mepa who have the required skills, but not enough to cope with the number of applications.

The trend towards a more rigid application of planning policy is further reinforced by the use of the “precedent”. It is often argued by the applicant that another similar development was issued with a permit. Because of the fear of precedent, the case officer and the DCC board tend to interpret policy in as rigid a manner as possible. The appeal boards with legal persons as chairpersons have adopted a legalistic approach to development applications, accepting the argument of precedent and undermining the “flexibility” in the interpretation of policy.

This trend for greater “rigidity” was confirmed in various policy documents issued by Mepa. Policy documents become more bulky with policies providing greater detail in terms of what is required of developments leaving little room for interpretation. For example, the design guidance Agriculture Farm Diversification and Stables (December 2007) totals 150 pages (apart from a further 70 pages for appendices). Criteria for development are defined in quantifiable terms. Subjectivity in the use of policies is reduced to the barest minimum.

Today the Maltese planning system weighs heavily in favour of “rigidity”. Having said that, a certain level of flexibility is inevitable. There is a limit to which the detail in planning policy can restrict the subjectivity of, for example, the assessment of impacts, neighbourhood compatibility, historic/architectural value and compatibility with streetscape.

Over the years, there have been numerous meetings and seminars on Mepa. Invariably, most of the comments made in such gatherings can be divided into two; there are those who argue that Mepa is too “rigid” and then there are those who argue that MEPA is being too “flexible” in its decisions. All depends on one’s perspective.

The Kamra tal-Periti (Chamber of Architects) itself is inconsistent on the matter. In an interview in April 2005, the then-KTP president Perit David Pace stated, “the only way to reduce such problems would be to have as little subjectivity as possible in the process.” In a position paper on the Mepa reform (March 2008), KTP notes: “Highly prescriptive guidance documents shackle rather than promote creativity, innovation, and quality”. What does KTP want – policy documents which are more or less prescriptive?

Where will the Maltese planning system go from here? Do we reverse the trend and introduce legislation, which somehow re-establishes the flexibility in the use of planning policy while maintaining adequate levels of certainty? Is Mepa ready and willing for such a culture change? Are we willing to allocate the resources to train and recruit planners and architects with the appropriate skills to run a planning system with a fair component of flexibility? Or do we prefer to reinforce the rigidity of our planning system?

Countries develop planning systems that are a reflection of the culture and the country’s economic and social aspirations.

Mr Ebejer, an architect and urban planner, is chairman of BICC. He was formerly policy advisor on land use planning in the Ministry for Resources and the Environment.