'I think that Mepa is weak with everyone'

Mepa audit officer Joe Falzon is determined to keep the authority in check. Nevertheless, he tells Mark Micallef he believes in Mepa - a lot.

Since taking on the job as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's first audit officer in 2004, Joe Falzon, with the help of his former assistant Carmel Cacopardo, has proved to be a painful thorn in the authority's side, producing report after report which in the main confirmed the public's perception about the authority's inconsistencies.

Things got increasingly sour over the years, with tension between the authority, particularly the chairman, and the auditor spilling into the public domain, and eventually leading to Mr Cacopardo's contract not being renewed.

The showdown attracted little public sympathy for the authority, which is why some people at Mepa must have been secretly gloating when The Sunday Times recently revealed that when Mr Falzon chaired what was then the authority's only Development Control Commission in 1994, he had approved the redevelopment of a dilapidated farmhouse in Mistra against the recommendation of the case officer. The development was located less than 100 metres away from the controversial Spin Valley development.

The news came shortly after the auditor lambasted the DCC board that approved the outline development permit for the Spin Valley project on land belonging to Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. The two cases differed on a number of counts, not least because in 1994 the area was already occupied by a dilapidated structure, while the disco project would have been developed on virgin land. Nonetheless, there are embarrassing parallels, which placed Mepa's most high-profile critic at the receiving end of the kind of story that has haunted the authority.

That is where the similarities end, as Mr Falzon did not cry foul or protest about the bad press. He just gave his version of facts, stressing particularly that the case concerned the redevelopment of an existing property.

His response today, again, is candid, even more so than his original reaction. "At the time, the law didn't say we had to give reasons which had planning grounds as it does today, but the truth is that some of the mistakes which are being made today could have been made by us too... I now think there should have been better assessment of that development: should it have been turned into a commercial development or a residential development?"

In effect, in the six years in which he was chairman, the board processed some 40,000 applications, at a time when the authority seems to have been in a rather fluid state of transition.

"It's impossible that we didn't make any bad decisions, especially at the start. We faced bigger problems because we were working in a situation where... I, for instance, was completely new to the system and had no idea about planning, I depended a lot on the board members who were on the Planning Area Permits Board (PAPB) previously, so even though the policies of that era had been superseded, thankfully, we still inherited some of the forma mentis."

The problem is that bad decisions continued, prompting the Prime Minister during the election campaign to take over the reform of the authority. Lawrence Gonzi has gone on record saying that it might take a year before this is complete, though he did not exclude implementing some changes before that. But can Mepa wait that long?

"I don't see why not, sometimes I get the impression that too much fuss is being made about what's going on at Mepa," is his surprising response. It is not that he has had a change of heart about the cases he unearthed and which underpin in large part the "fuss" being made about the authority, but he is keen to insist that, "although very serious, the big mistakes have been few".

The challenge ahead, he goes on to argue, is one that requires thought if it is to have a lasting effect.

"The crucial thing is to find a way to have sustainable development, with a long-term vision and which looks at the interest of the whole community, because at the moment I find that Mepa tends to sway towards the developer.

"I'll mention a case that irritates me a lot and that's Ta' Qali, which is meant to be a national park. You know what parks look like abroad. Is that a park to you? You've got fields, factories, football grounds, a market, now even an embassy... what's left? Instead of asking ourselves: what are the people's needs and planning according those needs, we pretended to have an action plan for Ta' Qali, then we change it whenever someone, often the government, comes up with an idea of having something new in Ta' Qali. We amend the action plan to accommodate these new ideas instead of having a proper plan and sticking to it."

That, he insists, requires a basic strategic orientation which, incidentally, is on the same wavelength as the government. In his address to parliament yesterday, the President stressed the Prime Minister's call for discussions on a sustainable development pact. It might be wider than the limited scope of Mepa; but so are the issues that underpin the authority's problems, according to Mr Falzon.

"The change that is needed is one in culture, ultimately, it's about the people and their attitude, both those working at Mepa and also the community. Take Mepa's problem with enforcement, which is a very serious problem. People often say that Mepa is weak with the strong, when it comes to enforcement. I think that Mepa is weak with everyone at this stage but do people really want enforcement?

"We have a culture of looking the other way, and trying to sort people out... you know, poor fellow. It's exasperated by our size and the fact that we all know each other. So unless we're prepared to say, if this is the law this is how it's going to be...

"I'll be clear. Take the Mistra case, what Dr Pullicino Orlando did in reality is no different to what many property owners do. No more, no less. There was nothing extraordinary about the case in the sense that there were many cases which were similar to this one and which I reported on... The fact is that the man is involved in politics and you have to see the scale of what is permitted, because it was just too much, (it) made the case even more sensational but we've got to face up to this reality."

The case and the publicity it received, incidentally, attracted a wave of complaints that have inundated the audit office, which was already swamped as it was. "I have about 30 to 40 pending cases at the moment, some of which I have not even looked at yet to be honest, he admitted."

The role of the auditor would presumably be crucial in any future reform, yet his comments confirm this important office is still not performing at the levels it used to before Mr Cacopardo left in 2006. The Ombudsman had intervened and offered to fill the void by providing back-up from his own team.

"It's obvious that the system worked better when Mr Cacopardo was around, I was very pleased with his work and we bounced ideas off each other. What's more, there is a lot of work and it takes time to investigate the pending cases, even if they are easy ones. And besides, when the secretary (the only other employee at the office) is on leave I have taken to leaving my door open because it almost gives me the creeps to be there on my own," he says with some jest.

There should soon be an IT link between his office and that of the Ombudsman after which work should be smoother. But does he still feel that his office is being given the importance it should? His response is mixed but hopeful.

"I don't know what is going to happen now. I think the best I can say for previous years is that we were seen as a nuisance. Every report I wrote in which I made the slightest bit of criticism would get rebuttals, saying why Mepa's position is justified... but things have changed even from the chairman's side. I think there's a realisation now that the audit office is an asset and not a hindrance, which is how it should be. I certainly don't want to hinder the authority, I believe in Mepa, a lot."

So much so, that he is willing to talk about its, and his, past mistakes, and learn from them.

Yet, there is another case in which he was involved that raises some questions, this time related to his private practice as an architect, after he left the authority in 1998. The authority had granted his clients, the MUSEUM society - of which he is a member - permission to redevelop a dilapidated building into a two-storey building that sticks out like a sore thumb on the largely untouched garigue area on the way to Ċirkewwa.

The land had been passed over to the society through a parliamentary resolution and the society wanted a two-storey recreation facility. He filed an application along these lines but the planning directorate objected, saying that only a one storey development would be acceptable there.

"Godwin Cassar had said to me 'I will object to two floors', pointing out that the original building was a single-storey building. I said 'OK' and advised the society to re-dimension its needs... I was expecting a permit for one floor and, in fact, I didn't even attend the board sitting when the decision was taken.

"Eventually, the permit was issued for two floors. How? I have no idea. I didn't speak or put any pressure on anyone in any way. I had to do a double-take when I received the permit but what could have I done at that stage - tell the society not to develop two storeys?

They would have said thank you very much and gone to another architect because they had the permit in hand."

Still, there is a sentence in a letter he had sent to the authority, in which he made his case in favour of his clients' development by citing another nearby development, that of the Solemar Hotel, which he had heavily criticised in an interview with this newspaper a few years ago. Isn't this a case of double standards?

"I still criticise the decision behind the Solemar Hotel... But I was making a case in favour of my clients as their architect there."

The onus of the decision is on the authority and not the architect making the case, who, like a lawyer, will try to make the best possible case for his client, he says.

"Had I been a board member, without having anything to do with the application, I would have gone with the recommendation of the planning directorate. That recommendation was the correct one... and even then I thought so because I had accepted it."

The mention of the transition between the PAPB, which was the widely-known botched system operated before Mepa was set up, parallels the situation today. The situation is arguably not as bad today, but nor is it good.

And there is similar talk of change in the air and some hope that it will lead to a planning system in which people actually have faith.