Mepa's self-incrimination

I do not envy Sylvana Debono, the PRO of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority; as a nice and decent person it cannot be easy for her to defend a body which is prey to so many demands and interests.

I presume this is why Ms Debono purposely missed the point (November 14) and took the opportunity to once again air the Galea Vincentis' and Mark Causon's alleged infringements although I explicitly avoided entering into the merits of these cases (November 5). My point is simple: as they are not relevant to the Hamrun shelters case, why are they being brought up? It is neither relevant nor ethical, so why do it?

Ms Debono says there is no pending complaint against Martin DeBono (the Qui-Si-Sana residents' architect) and therefore no attempt to silence him. Yet Mr DeBono confirms that not only is the first investigation (KTP0505) still going on, but that Mepa have also commenced another investigation with the Permanent Commission Against Corruption (350/1/05).

It is time to call a spade a spade. All government departments and bodies are highly vulnerable and Mepa especially so. As property development has become the main engine of the island's economy, most applications represent great financial and often political gain. It is no secret that significant pressure on Mepa employees and board members is exerted to approve certain projects. This is inevitable on an island like ours where so much is at stake, where everyone knows everyone else and where the culture of ethics and transparency is not universally espoused.

It is not only interference which does not permit Mepa to function as it should. Pressure to speed up processing of applications, lack of properly trained staff and resources often make serious evaluation of sensitive sites impossible.

As for the government's idea of improving the quality of life by commercialising the rest of Qui-Si-Sana, Mepa has been pussy-footing around for nine years on the case of Qui-Si-Sana residents who have been protesting about a restaurant beneath them that operates without permits. In these nine years, neighbours have had to put up with noxious fumes and dangerous gas cylinders, while Mepa lost files and permits. How would it be able to guarantee respect of regulations if the whole area is commercialised?

Lack of internal structures and regulations is also a problem. How would Ms Debono comment on the fact that an architect who forms part of Mepa's Heritage Advisory Board was actually involved in the application to demolish a house of historic, architectural and scenic value? This house is probably the oldest structure still standing in Sliema and Mepa's granting of an outline demolition permit violates its own regulations on Urban Conservation Areas! Now I wonder why that should have happened, Ms Debono? What's more, at the time that the application was reviewed, this architect actually formed part of the same DCC board that reviewed the case. True, he rose from the table when it was discussed but is it reasonable to expect board members to vote against their colleague? These situations are so easily avoidable by changes to Mepa regulations, so why does Mepa continue to allow them? These are the facts that discredit Mepa, not letters to the media.

I am not trying to demonise Mepa, as I think that it does invaluable work but, like most Maltese, I would like to see it allowed to function properly, without interference from any source or vilification of applicants. I have great respect for Mepa employees and board members, many of whom I know to be very honest and hardworking people performing a thankless task with few resources and under great pressure from all sides. I find this whole debate highly unpleasant, however someone has to do it. One cannot expect those involved to speak out and be the whistleblowers as it would mean professional suicide. So it is up to us who value our island to do so, for, while the risk of abuse remains, there can be no true protection of Malta's environment and architectural heritage.