No covert mission or spy stories!

Following my interview (August 21), I have received numerous positive reactions recognising that there was no animosity or hidden agendas in my account. Perhaps unsurprisingly, each of these reactions seemed to have as many different interpretations of the message I tried to convey.

Admittedly, I haven't come forward, aware of all the risks that it involved, to join the bandwagon and quench that overriding thirst for scandal that many seem to have. I was driven primarily by the interest of my profession, and by a genuine sense of responsibility towards an organisation, which, as in every love affair, continues to give me great joy and sometimes tearing heartache.

The use of big words and phrases in response to my interview, such as "spilled the beans", "unmasked", "revelations" and "incompetence" sent shivers down my spine. Despite the glamorous headline The Insider, the interview uncovered no secrets but was largely based on statistical evidence, parliamentary debates on the subject and Audit Office communications and information contained in the more recent annual reports.

I sought to broadly portray the difficulties that Mepa goes through day in, day out and called for investment in new human resources that would relieve an overworked and stressed work force.

I am in full agreement with Godwin Cassar's comments (September 2) that the authority's ability to respond swiftly to meet resource requirements has been hampered by a general shortage of professional resources in the "marketplace" and a lengthy lead in time for placement. This is why perhaps the focus should be shifted on administration staff and planning technician in support of a system that could risk becoming top heavy. In turn, such a move could unlock career progression opportunities for the lower grades within Mepa who may have felt a bit marginalised in recent years.

The lack of human resources or the lengthy process by which measures to tackle the matter are implemented, have far-reaching implications particularly, clearly visible in the determination of development applications and enforcement, which too many people erroneously think are Mepa's only responsibilities.

For those not living in an illusionary world, it is plain to see that with the current resources, backlogs are inevitable and are not a result of incompetence but of the physical impossibility of dealing with the amount of work that single individuals are faced with.

If mathematics is not an opinion, statistical evidence published by Mepa in recent years (2000-2005) has shown that, notwithstanding the frenetic efforts to contain the pending caseload, this has risen from 2,742 to 3,263 applications (which only include applications waiting to be assessed and not those in reconsideration and appeal stages).

Latest July figures show the pending caseload at 4,436, which I would anticipate to settle to about 4,000 this month. One should keep in mind that a proportion of these applications may be waiting for additional information and therefore cannot be processed.

This rise in the backlog is a direct consequence of urgent tasks, such as the local plans and the rationalisation of development boundaries, that saw Mepa shift priorities and human resources. Such occurrences have stretched the organisation beyond its limit and one cannot expect more out of it, when considering the limitations and means available.

Surely, this is no consolation to Mepa's clients who have their applications pending, with contracts and loans to pay back. Consequently, such delays and backlogs can cost tens of liri a day, sometimes even hundreds, in bank interest charges for single development applications that, in turn, may affect development prices.

Let's put all this in perspective. In 2005, the laudable major projects unit managed to determine 450 projects, despite being severely understaffed and having operational difficulties (scattered around in different rooms!). It meant an estimated contribution to the economy of Lm 100 million (about 5.5 per cent of GDP).

This unit (given the nature of the development applications) still finds time for negotiation, healthy team discussions and practical application of planning policy. Indeed, it shows maturity and awareness that the "book" cannot cater for all of the particularities of each situation. The old planning principle "judging the proposal on its own merits" is still applied here. This makes it easier to iron out problems at the initial stages, within the Planning Directorate, rather than going through the lengthy (and costly) reconsideration and appeal processes.

This is no criticism to the other understaffed area teams, which deal with the over 6,000 applications a year and, unfortunately, get little praise, if any, through annual reports and budget speeches. Given the incumbent targets, workload and lack of human resources, negotiations in these teams (as advocated by reforms) will rarely materialise.

This situation is disheartening, for all levels of the workforce. To see that, despite the efforts, public perception has remained hostile and years of work publicly discounted as "inconsistent" or disregarded by who should be Mepa's solid bastion, are surely not helping an already precarious situation.

The argument is simple, really. With a substantial portion of Mepa's own income coming from development permit fees, a pending caseload of 4,000 applications translates in an equally substantial unearned income of about Lm2 million. In terms of nationwide implications, based on the estimated contribution to the GDP that 450 applications have had in 2005, tackling the pending caseload aggressively would bring much welcome benefits to the country.

Particularly, it could reduce pressure on undeveloped land and reduce illegal developments, while giving space to market operators to agree whether the land released through the rationalisation exercise can in reality be exploited or will it signify a tragic slump in the property market, brought about by an uncapped oversupply.

In the light of this and in my personal opinion, there can be no other solution to reduce the pending caseload than to invest heavily in human resources in all sections and directorates to ensure that public awareness, application assessment, enforcement and the environment protection move hand in hand.

The second important aspect that I tried to deliver in my interview was that the Chamber of Planners - and planners as professionals - exist. In the same way that toothaches are dealt with by dentists and not by opticians, so should planning matters and planning applications be dealt with by planners and not by architects.

It is a great pity that so much talent and creative flair cannot be utilised in designing good quality buildings because architects feel obliged to deal with all the correspondence, reports and meetings that some development planning applications often involve. Notwithstanding the fact that the architect's role in the case of plans and drawings per se should not be challenged, the completion of planning application forms and the planning process as a whole should not be exclusive to this profession.

Ironically, even within Mepa's executive levels, planners are severely underrepresented, demonstrating very little consideration and blatant disrespect to a profession that should be at the very basis of the organisation, spearheading the principles of the same authority, finding the much needed balance between development and natural environment, appropriate interpretation of policies and decisively conveying the sustainable development philosophy. We have a situation whereby qualified professionals cannot or find it difficult to operate in a sector that should be their competence by right!

In conclusion, provoked by no degree of being a protagonist but in defence of my own profession and my former workmates, I think it is time to set aside pride and rhetoric, and seriously consider how to tackle the pending caseload, recognise the financial implications and consequences that delays translate in, and understand that expecting more from the current workforce is just beating a dead horse.

Moreover, I would like to see, with some degree of urgency, a wider inclusion for qualified planners, formal nationwide recognition for the Chamber of Planners and a revision of Mepa's framework to break the unjustified monopoly that has been created over the planning process. It is time to put the nation's interest first through action not words!

Mr. Bonello holds a B.Sc. in environmental management and planning from the University of Central England and now runs his own planning consultancy.

tobydais@maltanet.net