Mangion Mangion & Partners, Malta Architects, Civil Engineers and Planning Consultants

Until 1992, few people in Malta had heard about Planning. Since then many think that they know what Planning is all about. Very few, including some professionals at MEPA, many Architects, Politicians and most Lawyers, actually base their arguments on real Planning issues. Perit Vincent Magri looks at today’s Planning system and makes a case for a new breed of professionals – the real Planner.

In most people’s mind, Planning means MEPA. This is simplistically equated to development permits, meaning profit or environmental damage, depending on which side of the fence they stand on. Planning is much more than this. It is a way of doing things.

Planning as a profession emerged in the United Kingdom after the Second World War. Initially dominated by Architects, it focused on the physical aspects of development. However, people soon realized that there were two other main aspects that had to also be taken into consideration – the Economic and the Social aspects. This followed a few major ‘mistakes’ that had failed to take these factors into consideration. The concept also spread vertically to encompass groups of buildings, localities, towns and even regions. The emphasis at each level is different, from the short term specific to the long term strategic. In the last two decades, the Environmental aspect of Planning gained importance.

Planning is essentially a balancing act between the above factors. It does not necessarily mean striving for the middle route, as this might disappoint everyone involved. It means considering all the aspects while giving priority to the most important factor related to the particular location or to the particular point in time when the decision is taken about the future. Consideration to implementation must also be given, as this influences which aspect is to be given priority.

In Malta, Planning is absolutely dominated by the MEPA to the extent that in most people’s mind, the two are synonymous with each other. Over the years MEPA has been involved in a number of controversial decisions. These are usually followed by a public outcry. There is then an attempt to carry out some changes in the organisation. The trouble is that this process will repeat itself just as long as the changes are carried out in a piecemeal fashion.

This is not to say that MEPA does not need to be reformed!

The argument is that we have to look beyond MEPA as an organization, and think more on the totality of it all as a Planning System. Good Planning can only result from teamwork, with all the players contributing their individual input. Today we have a Prima Donna of Planning accompanied by a very weak chorus. How can we expect to have a first class production? We need to create a Planning System that diffuses Planning into most organizations, including most public (and private) entities, both at decision-making and decision-taking levels.

This would entail the availability of real Planning professionals to give their input into such organizations. It implies:

a better Planning education system, and
the recognition of the Planning Profession, with all rights and obligations attached.

Hence, any Planning reform, rather than just taking the short-term view, needs to also take account of the long term perspective.

In the short term scenario, the most logical solution is to reform MEPA. What would such a reform entail?

We should be questioning the merger between the Planning and the Environmental aspects. Planning encompasses many disciplines whilst an Environment Authority must of necessity be very focused. With the present set-up, both aspects are negatively influencing each other - Planning is perhaps too environmentally focused at MEPA Directorate level, whilst being too Economically focused at MEPA Board level. In addition, the Social focus is sorely missing.

Secondly, the internal procedures at the Planning Directorate need to be sorted out. The organizational culture definitely needs to change – from a bureaucratic culture to a planning results oriented one. More audit procedures are needed to increase the transparency of the organisation. One cannot continue to allow a situation where applications are treated as if they are objects being produced in a factory, where it is numbers that count most; where consultations are an excuse to delay the process, where some officers are unreachable, and where you either do what the officers say or else they will recommend a refusal. Unfortunately these things do tend to happen today.

Thirdly, the composition of the Boards needs to be re-visited. How can anyone representing a specific interest group take an impartial Planning decision? Their decisions would be biased towards the particular organization they represent. Furthermore, is it really possible for someone not knowledgeable about Planning to decide on Planning issues? This situation would be analogous to a medical board composed of lay persons being asked to decide on medical issues.

Any MEPA reform would need to include both short term and long term measures. This reform must start immediately if it is to be effective. It requires the involvement of Planning professionals. Are we going to take up the challenge?


Perit Vincent Magri is specialized in Land Use Planning, having graduated from the University of Malta and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He has worked in Planning since 1988, both as part of the Planning Directorate in the early days of Planning in Malta and in the Private sector. He currently forms part of the team at Mangion, Mangion and Partners (Architects, Civil Engineers and Planning Consultants) – and can be contacted on vmagri@mmp.com.mt or 21336704.