MEPA auditor, please!

Government is becoming the most obscene sinner against the environment. This is because government land in prime areas is being auctioned off at astronomical figures, with indications of possible projects shooting into the sky. There is little or no concern at all about the impact that these buildings may have on other factors which are fundamental to good urban planning, social considerations, and the law itself.

MEPA is the confessor who gets to know about these sins, and absolves the sinner. As an act of contrition it imposes a "planning gain", which is intended to benefit the area where the extraordinary development would eventually be built.

What is wrong about the whole story is that absolution is guaranteed by MEPA. Such projects are destined to be approved whatever other considerations there may be which, in normal cases, would have found the strong hand of the law and the citing of chapter and verse of the regulations why a relatively minor development should be refused.

This is the story of the Fort Cambridge project and of Pender Place. The Fort Cambridge project was approved "in outline" (which is a misnomer) last week, after a lengthy debate, but which had all the markings from the start that it had to be approved.

Flouting the tender

A serious objection was that the original tender mentioned a 16-storey tower on a sprawling footprint. Eventually the plans were amended and the sprawl was reduced but it was squeezed up into the air. What was 16 in the public tender become 23 on the drawing board. Had this been privately owned land, then there is no question that the same rules would not apply.

A government tender is regulated by law. It has to be adhered to scrupulously. The Disposal of Government Land Act contains provisions regarding the limits of the government to dispose of public land as it wishes, and when tenders are issued these form a contract between the government and the public. There can be no disregard for the conditions.

This argument did not convince MEPA. For MEPA it was the escape route to try to make the project more amenable to the surrounding area.

In breach of the law

I am not referring to the "chewing gum rules" that form the backbone of MEPA legislation which can mean everything and nothing, depending on the interpretation that those who process an application may choose to apply in a particular case. These are generally referred to when a refusal is decreed on an application of John Citizen, who wants to change a minor element in his own house.

When it comes to other applications, which are destined for an approval, then the interpretation changes completely. I call them the "chewing gum rules" because they are strong and soft at the same time, and take the imprint of the teeth of the one who decides.

For example, the idea that an application may have a negative impact on the surrounding area may be the cornerstone for an adamant refusal in a minor case.

The same rule does not apply to Pender Place and Tigné.

This does not mean that the neighbours are not consulted. MEPA goes through the motions and the procedures, but in the cases I am mentioning, the end result is a foregone conclusion.

Another example is the negative generation of traffic in an area. This has been the reason for refusals in many minor cases. I remember a case about a clinic. Another one was changing a groundfloor tenement into an office.

During the public hearing on the Fort Cambridge project we were told that "with or without the project" the traffic congestion is already there. During the debate I mused: "Well, this is the same as saying 'he is already drunk, so a couple of tots more would not make any difference'."

But what is worse is that there are clear provisions of laws which are being violated. The height of buildings has been laid down in Section 97 of the Code of Police Laws as being proportional to the width of the street on which the building abuts. As long as that law remains in place, then MEPA is bound to observe the law. It is not the independent republic of St Francis Ravelin.

The sore story about it was that I was informed that this falls within the domain of the health authorities and not MEPA! The commandments of MEPA, embodied in the MEPA Act, Section 33 lay down that MEPA has to take into consideration sanitary factors.

Eventually, when the motion on Fort Cambridge was being debated in detail, the outline permit which included the height of the building was approved subject to the provisions of the Code of Police Laws. What was evidently against the code should have been applied by MEPA. Now what are the health authorities going to say, once there is written down that MEPA has approved the height?

Turning Sliema into a ghetto with towers shooting up into the sky is not the best practice for the residents, for the environment, the tourist industry, for the well-being of the whole country.

In these circumstances, I have no option but to ask the MEPA Auditor to examine these two cases for his eventual report. Can MEPA be in breach of clear written laws?