Safety and Mepa don't mix

It is now official - and quite unbelievable!

One of Mepa's legal advisers, writing in his official position, (February 3) declared that "the Malta Environment and Planning Authority does not have the legal remit nor the responsibility to assess or verify the safety of any development being carried out, whether such a development has been authorised by Mepa or not. The role of Mepa, as regulated by law, is to determine and regulate development on planning grounds... Matters relating to safety in relation to construction are regulated by laws and regulations which do not fall within Mepa's legal remit".

Surely such an arrangement is not only dangerous but also unfair on people! It makes a mockery of local justice and sidelines the state's responsibility to safeguard citizens properly. This ridiculous situation must surely be a prime reason for the sorry state Mepa is in - shackled, ineffective, toothless, unaccountable. It cries out for insistent protest on the part of citizens and urgent remedial action by the authorities.

Safety considerations are expected at all places of education, work and recreation. EU officials have recently expressed the opinion (and rightly so) that local safety considerations at places of work should be more stringent and effective. But Mepa presently remains aloof, unaccountable, issuing building permits without going into safety factors! To me this is an illogical and legally questionable situation.

Can Mepa directors explain to the public (perhaps during a talk show) how they can possibly regulate developmental planning without considering safety factors? Could Environment Minister George Pullicino say whether this state of affairs is acceptable to him personally and whether it is in line with European and international practice?

Could he tell the people and, especially, our MPs and MEPs which of our European Union partners (if any) boast a developmental planning remit similar to Mepa's? Is the Planning Appeals Board's own remit identical to Mepa's insofar as safety considerations go?

Also, seeing that Mepa's role is regulated by law, could the Minister for Justice explain why the present arrangement is considered to be not only workable but also just and desirable for people?

Perhaps the chambers of architects and of advocates respectively also feel the need to express themselves on such an important matter.

It is time to reconcile Mepa's building regulations with civil laws and to modernise both to bring them in line with European practice. Surely our politicians must appreciate that it is scandalous for Mepa officials to (have to) tell those who are about to be (or who have already been) hard hit by a development - even when their very lives may be threatened by planned projects - to seek redress in the law courts! It is well known that such a proposition is too costly and time-consuming for many citizens even to consider. Or doesn't the state have a duty to safeguard the interests of its citizens?

Mepa's present remit may be benefiting unscrupulous developers while inflicting worry, hardship and possible danger on citizens. It is not enough for the entity to assign responsibility for safety just to the architect/s involved in a development; Mepa, and the state too, must shoulder their responsibility.

Modern, workable strategies that protect the safety of people and their property and general well-being need to be quickly implemented.

Our representatives, both here and abroad, need to cry out for urgent change on their constituents' behalf. I appeal to them, to political and social organisations, the media, trade unions, local councils, NGOs... to delve deeply into this matter and to express themselves loud and clear so that (hopefully) much needed change may quickly be brought about.

There are people out there who are being very negatively affected indeed.