The safety aspect in Mepa's remit

I again express disbelief following Mepa's declaration that it "does not have the legal remit nor the responsibility to assess or verify the safety of any development being carried out whether such development has been authorised by Mepa or not" (February 3).

What a dangerous situation! How can Mepa issue permits without examining safety factors? Surely no project should be sanctioned if there is the least possibility of danger to anybody - or if it will negatively affect other people's houses, perhaps rendering these uninhabitable and shattering residents' peace of mind with resultant consequences on their health! Why force people to seek refuge in court?

I again ask Environment Minister George Pullicino if he's happy with the present situation. Whether it is in line with European practice? Whether the Planning Appeal Board's own remit similarly dismisses safety considerations?

Mr Pullicino asserts it is just the architect who is responsible for works! But it is Mepa that issues possibly dangerous permits - and neglects to ensure works are carried out safely for all stakeholders!

Functions And Responsibilities (February 22), Godwin Cassar's contribution on the subject, simply served to convince people that Mepa's remit is unacceptable and dangerous. I ask him once again: How can Mepa issue building permits and regulate development without considering safety factors?

He explains that in a number of European countries "land use planning and building control to assure safety are often two separate regulatory regimes". One of these, "Building Control, ensures that projects are designed and constructed in a safe manner..." But in Malta this "regulatory regime" dealing with safety for all stakeholders does not even exist! Moreover, there is no other entity entrusted to oversee safety comprehensively since the Occupational Health and Safety Authority ostensibly only handles safety matters for construction site workmen.

Who is responsible locally for the safety of a project's future residents and that of third parties and their properties? It is unfair and dangerous to assign all responsibility just to the architect involved! The recent crossing of swords between Mark Gauci, OHSA chief executive (March 2) and architect David Pace, president of the Chamber of Architects (February 28 and March 7) served to show that important pieces are missing in the local set-up. May I also inquire here who is representing the citizens' interests in the Xemxija mudslide inquiry?

Dr Cassar rambles on: "Mepa... is by no means unique in... the exclusion of the safeguarding of the safety of development during construction". Could he please provide readers with a list of other authorities which act similarly - both prior to the issuing of permits and during actual construction? His sympathetic conclusion: "None of this negates Mr Grech's main point that development should take place in a way that does not endanger the health or safety of people, or the safety of their property" just annoys me further. We Maltese request not sympathy but far-reaching action to put things right. Mepa is failing to consider safety factors at ground zero - when considering new applications.

It fails dismally too in overseeing that resultant works are carried out properly and safely. If Mepa, or the Planning Appeals Board, does not oversee safety, to whom can third parties turn for protection? Mepa's remit is a bad joke and leaves a lot to be desired from a legal viewpoint. I urge MPs to express themselves about the matter.

A meeting was held in Sliema on February 22 so suggestions could be made as to how we can best utilise EU funds. A housewife complained to the Prime Minister that a building had gone up too close to her house, negatively affecting both her home and her family's peace of mind. There were many other complaints and Mr Pullicino listened. He ought to remember he is there to remedy the situation - and not to just offer excuses and, possibly, condolences as things continue going wrong.

Can we really just go on wrecking what little is left, ruining lovely buildings, rendering people's homes uninhabitable in the shadows of taller, soul-less looking apartment blocks, possibly even endangering people's lives in the process?

Mr Pullicino ought to take up the challenge of providing a new remit for Mepa - one which prioritises proper citizen and environmental safety and well-being.

Why put all the blame on selfish developers and abusive Mepa officials, as Michael Falzon (February 26), a former minister who used to be responsible for planning, suggests, even admitting that his creation has become a monster? Of course it has - possibly because he himself, as its creator, neglected to make it more accountable, to rein it in properly and to include responsibility for safety considerations in its remit!

The website www.ci.lincoln.ne.us/ which is the building and safety departmental website of the city of Lincoln in Nebraska, US, says: "Why are permits required? Safety is the primary reason for requiring permits. City inspectors check to make sure construction and installations are proper for the protection of your family and your property, your neighbours, and buyers of your property".

In all those countries that genuinely concern themselves with citizens safety, responsibility for building permits is shared fourfold: by the owners, the architect, the contractor and, last but not least, the building and safety department itself. Here, the situation is very different.

It is also shameful that Mepa's regulations do not even correlate with civil laws! Joanna Drake, head of the European Commission Representation in Malta, and our five MEPs should do something as this no longer remains a question of building regulations - it has become a matter of safety, human rights and justice for Maltese people.

Article 6, chapter II of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, lays down that: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person". Article 7 declares: "Everybody has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications". Article 37 says: "A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development".

Are these articles being observed in Mepa's functions and responsibilities? Decidedly not, in my opinion, because there is no proper surveillance of safety in all aspects connected with development works (that is, from the initial application to the issuing of certificates of occupancy). Whoever is responsible should ensure that, as European citizens, we are not denied the safety safeguards to which we are entitled. Hopefully, the situation can be corrected so that we won't have to wash our dirty linen in public.