Mepa 'has failed'

It is unlikely that anyone from within the Malta Environment and Planning Authority has publicly criticised the authority as heavily as its audit officer Joe Falzon. Despite the frank language and the stern warnings, however, there are no calls for resignations in his published reports. Mark Micallef finds out why.

In his latest monthly news conference, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi brushed aside a question regarding the recent spate of reports that have criticised the Malta Environment and Planning Authority as being inconsistent and unfair.

Dr Gonzi said he did not believe the "authority is weak with the strong". Yet, that was precisely the conclusion of an inquiry into a landslide that occurred under a building in Xemxija last January, caused by illegal excavations by a private developer.

The inquiry was headed by Mr Falzon. He looked into how the authority handled the excavations by Polidano Brothers, going one step further, saying the authority was "impotent" when it came to dealing with large developers.

Government sources say the Office of the Prime Minister was at the forefront of the decision to launch the inquiry, fully conscious that Mr Falzon had a reputation of calling a spade a spade.

In fact, Mr Falzon's criticism suggests the authority is an airless room that needs ventilation. It has now embarked upon a restructuring process overseen by the management efficiency unit.

The Development Control Section (DCS) - which comes in for most criticism - and other sections of the authority were subject to audits.

An audit carried out by British consultant Lesley Robinson had revealed that six per cent of reports drawn up by Mepa's case officers were inadequate. However, it also said that Maltese case officers have three times the workload of their counterparts in the UK.

Nonetheless, Mr Falzon believes the problems go beyond management issues.

"Mepa has structural problems which have never really been tackled. Perhaps it's because of a lack of courage or a lack of will," he says.

"Unless there is a crackdown on the illegal developments by big developers we will never change the system. Our culture of compromise, trying to keep everybody happy, at times makes sense but the situation is no longer sustainable."

Mr Falzon served as deputy chairman of Mepa for six years between 1992-1998 and chairman of the Development Control Commission before his latest appointment as audit officer.

In a few sentences, the conclusions of the Xemxija report officially confirmed what many observers, political or otherwise, had long been saying: that Mepa is not fulfilling its duty as a watchdog. Yet, nobody was made to resign after this case. Why?

"The terms of reference given to the inquiry board was that it should make suggestions on how to improve things rather than pin down individuals."

But what about accountability? The authority, he insists, is structurally flawed. Changing Mepa means changing its culture.

"What's more, I really don't think there was a single individual who failed in this issue. I think that it's the entire enforcement structure that failed.

"I remember that when we first started, one of the very first things I pointed out was that we had two problems which, if not reined in, will destroy the authority.

"The first was the extraordinary length of time it takes the authority to deal with simple applications... and the second was the lack of proper enforcement."

The enforcement issue existed before Mepa was set up and was probably more serious than it is today. "How can I identify one person then?... It's a culture."

Some 80 to 90 per cent of the applications are trivial, he continues. "If you keep these people happy, deal with their cases in a reasonable time - and there is no reason why not because these are straightforward cases - then the majority of people would be behind the authority.

"That would give it the leeway it needs to deal with the big applications where the real problems lie."

But is it not the leadership of an organisation which has to have the courage to change things?

"I think it's the leadership of the whole of Maltese society. Do we want enforcement? Everybody is up for enforcement as long as it does not involve his/her property. If you don't find a parking space you grumble, but if you park illegally and get a fine you grumble just the same. It's a culture."

When giving evidence in the Xemxija case, the planning director said he scratched his head when the names of certain known developers came up, he points out. "Because they know they are helpless. These people enjoy immunity in reality. Why? I don't know.

"In my report I made a comment to which the authority took exception. It was the only comment they reacted to. I said they had chosen to take an easy decision to avoid a more painful one in connection with the same developer.

"I have no problem specifying which case I was referring to - the Solemar Hotel case. Not only did he (Charles Polidano) develop the land illegally, but he encroached on public land. Instead of sending a bulldozer and pulling the thing down his development was sanctioned. Moreover, the land was sold to him and he was given the right of first refusal.

"I actually have sympathy for enforcement officers. They are feeling superfluous. With or without them things remain the same. ...They are on the frontline but are helpless."

But helpless with the small fish and not the big ones?

"The small fish are scared."

In the Xemxija case, he explained, the authority had the power to confiscate the developer's equipment but they could not do it in this case because they had nowhere to store it.

"The situation we are in emanated from these cases... out of the fact that we are not prepared to take action against the big developers. However, the small developers will automatically comply with the law because they're afraid."

I point out that even though there was an emphasis on the perversity of certain situations, no mention of corruption or at least political interference was made in any of the recent reports.

"I cannot say that I have come across a case as such. As long as I was in the DCC I never came across any direct orders or interference. The same applies to my time as audit officer. What there is, and I think there is a lot of it in Mepa like in other places, is cases of people suggesting or influencing how they could sort out this or the other.

"There are a couple of cases which cannot really be explained otherwise. The case of the Qala school is an example. I think that case is scandalous from A to Z."

But was there political pressure in that case?

"Probably... Let's make it clear that nobody pocketed any money and no one had a direct interest. But I have never seen a report in Mepa in which there is an objection from the heritage angle and the recommendation is to grant permission. There could be but I have never seen one to this effect."

In this case, the heritage advisory committee had said that it was "strongly" against the demolition of the building but then the internal heritage management team, after making a glowing appraisal of the building, said it should not be scheduled because there were negotiations underway with the architects.

"If anything, I would have scheduled it to strengthen my position. It just doesn't make sense to suggest that the permit had to be issued at all costs."

Mr Falzon's report into this case had recommended that disciplinary action be taken against the Mepa officials responsible for the permit since they had assumed responsibility and denied the existence of any interference.

The Gozo Ministry had said that the original plans had been amended following meetings between the ministry, the Chamber of Architects and Mepa, to incorporate the front portico of the school into the design.

Nonetheless, the rest of the demolition went ahead despite the auditor's call for an immediate issue of an emergency conservation order and the condemnation by the Chamber of Architects, which described the demolition as an act of vandalism.

The school was deemed a modern architectural gem designed by Joseph Huntingford (1926-1994) and built in the early 1960s.

Mepa was placed in a difficult context where it was tasked with reversing complex situations that existed in the past, Mr Falzon insists. But, on the whole, due to both internal and external problems, it has failed.

"The authority's mission statement is to improve the quality of life but in reality Mepa could not keep up with the rate of the country's development."

The solution is a concerted effort to take enforcement seriously, according to Mr Falzon, across all the authorities that deal with planning - including the government.