|
James Debono
The government’s plans to extend development zones by an area of 2.4 per cent is under the European Commission’s scrutiny after a number of questions were sent to Commissioner Stavros Dimas by MaltaToday.
Malta could be in breach of the European Union’s directive on strategic environmental assessments which stipulates that modifications to plans effecting the environment should be submitted to an impact assessment.
“The SEA Directive treats modifications to plans and programmes in the same way as new plans or programmes,” a spokesperson for Dimas said.
So far the government has rebutted claims that the new plans to increase development zones by 2.4 per cent fall under the scope of the directive, claiming that the SEA does not apply to plans commenced before 2004.
The government claims that the new plans are a continuation of the local plan process which was initiated 13 years ago.
Yet in submitting the new plans, the government has also modified the criteria adopted by MEPA at local plan stage to the extent that Environment Minister George Pullicino has criticised MEPA for being “inconsistent in its criteria” at the local plan stage.
Only two local plans have so far been approved before 1995. But five other local plans have been put on the backburner awaiting parliament’s approval.
In the meantime the government has bypassed MEPA by issuing a set of criteria leaving the authority with barely three days to include new lands on the basis of its criteria.
The EU’s directive on strategic environmental assessments obliges impact assessments to be carried on any plan or programme which will have an impact on land use.
The directive ensures that all environmental consequences of certain plans and programmes are identified and assessed during their preparation and before their adoption.
According to Commission’s expert on the directive David Aspinwall, “the environmental significance of a 2.4 per cent increase in development zones will depend on the circumstances but it is worth noting even minor modifications can generate significant environmental effects.”
MaltaToday asked Commissioner Dimas to determine whether the new development schemes are a continuation of the local plan process or whether the new plans should be treated as a new development falling under the scope of the directive.
MaltaToday informed the Commission that in the new plans, lands which have not been considered at the local plan stage have been proposed for inclusion
MaltaToday also informed the Commission that the Maltese government has intervened by issuing its own set of criteria, claiming that MEPA has been inconsistent in the application of these criteria at the local plan stage.
It also informed the Commission that apart from issuing guidelines for the inclusion of new zones, the Maltese government has also submitted a number of new lands for MEPA’s consideration.
A spokesperson for Commissioner Dimas replied “that due to the very technical and hypothetical nature of your questions – the Commission cannot give a firm answer to your questions.”
Although the Commission has refrained from committing itself on the legality of the process, it has provided MaltaToday with a number of technical observations on the applicability of the SEA directive to the proposed changes in development zones.
According to David Aspinwall, the SEA Directive sets a series of conditions specifying that the plan or programme must be prepared or adopted by an authority in the member state.
“From the information supplied by MaltaToday it seems that the first condition is met as the plan is prepared by MEPA,” Aspinwall told MaltaToday.
Another condition states that the plan is required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions.
Referring to this condition Aspinwall said, “it is not clear whether the second condition is met and we would be if we are given more information on this.”
Another condition states that the plan sets the framework for future development consent of projects listed in the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Directive.
“It appears that the third condition may be met as the plan appears to be in the sectors of town and country planning or land use and it may set the framework for future development consent of projects in the EIA Directive.”
The phrase “set the framework” is not defined in the Directive. Aspinwall points out that the Commission Services have issued guidance which suggests that it would normally mean that the plan or programme contains criteria or conditions which guide the way an authority like MEPA decides on whether an application for development is approved or not.
The fact that lands presently outside development boundaries will be included in new scheme will have a significant impact on the outcome on planning applications in these areas.
Projects listed in the EIA Directive cover a very wide range but include industrial estate development projects, urban development projects including shopping centres and car parks, and roads.
Modification to plans
The Commission’s expert told MaltaToday that the SEA Directive treats modifications to plans and programmes in the same way as new plans or programmes.
The term ‘modification’ is not defined in the Directive. According to the Commission Services’ guidance, many land use plans are modified when they become outdated, rather than being prepared afresh.
“If modifications were not given the same importance as the plans and programmes themselves, the field of application of the Directive would be more restricted.”
But the Commission’s expert also added that “it is logical to consider that a modification of a plan or programme during its preparation must be subject to assessment if the modification in itself involves significant environmental effects not yet assessed.”
Using these criteria one could argue that the fact government has issued its own criteria and has submitted a number of lands on its own initiative, could amount to a serious modification to the local plan process.
Time-frame of directive
According to the Commission it is “necessary to consider the date the Directive took effect in the Member States,” when assessing whether it applies to particular plans.
The Maltese government has procrastinated in adopting this directive which was only transposed by a legal notice issued in December 2005.
The legal notice states a plan can only be submitted to a SEA if it was commenced after 21 July 2004. Effectively this would exclude the local plan process from the scope of this directive.
But the same notice also states that the SEA would apply to plans and programmes commenced before 21 July 2004, but have not been submitted for approval by 21 July 2006.
The Commission’s expert points out that if the government’s rationalisation exercise meets the criteria of Articles 2 and 3 and is indeed a plan or programme, or modification of one that was started after 21 July 2004, it would require a SEA.
“Alternatively, if it was started before 21 July 2004 but not adopted before 21 July 2006 it would appear to require SEA unless authorities decide that this is not feasible and make public their decision.”
This effectively means that even if the rationalisation of boundaries is deemed to be a continuation of the local plan process commenced 13 years ago, the SEA Directive would still apply if the new boundaries are not approved before parliament’s summer recess.
This could explain why MEPA was only given three days to interpret the government’s criteria. The government has so far not made a declaration that a SEA directive is not feasible.
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
Links: www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/06/11/t5.html
|
