Mepa's inefficiency and blunders (1)

I hope the Mepa reform addresses the following issues:

1. Some architects have their private practice yet at the same time sit on the DCC and other Mepa boards. Is this not similar to a magistrate holding court in the morning and seeing to clients in the afternoon?

2. DCC members are practically part timers. They hold meetings only on some days of the week and when they do it is only for a half day. Is it any wonder that backlogs have accumulated to such an extent? Cannot Mepa employ full timers of integrity and pay them a decent remuneration?

3. Acknowledgements of applications are worded "this application should be determined by..." (usually within three months). Sure enough at the last moment when the applicant is expecting approval the Case Officer suddenly unloads on the applicant a three-page full list of objections most of which eventually fall away, but not before time consuming bureaucratic correspondence between Mepa and the applicant's architect takes place. Cannot the case officer assess the application within one month and come up with his remarks within this time? Cannot some of these points be cleared during a meeting of the architect and the case officer?

4. Cannot Mepa appoint and train case officers with the necessary aptitude to assess applications. It seems that some case officers believe that their vocation in life is to find as many objections as possible and to take as blinkered a view and be as difficult as they possibly can.

5. Finally, when the application comes before the DCC, the decision more often than not is postponed pending clarification of some point or revision in the plans. When these amendments, however minor, are submitted by applicant they go back to the case officer much to the frustration of the applicant. The case officer of course takes his time to see what the DCC required and pass on the file back to the DCC. This takes another three months. Cannot the DCC see what they requested direct, bypassing the case officer when minor matters are involved? This saves time and expense not only to the applicant who has to pay his architect but also to Mepa. Systems and methods need updating.

6. The Mepa Appeals Board, one can say, is almost a photocopy of proceedings at Mepa itself insofar as efficiency is concerned. Cases usually drag for over a year before they are decided. At the slightest query that arises the case is postponed by three to four months. This board is chaired by a lawyer presumably to ensure that the case is also addressed from the legal viewpoint. Why not then have a lawyer sit on the DCC board to guide this board on legal aspects "at source" thus avoiding a few of the eventual appeals.

7. Enforcement officers: The least said the better. They seem to be in competition with the case officers as to who is the most unreasonable while also trying to find the imaginary fly in the ointment. Who knows why?

8. Mepa must seriously endeavour to clear the perception that it is weak with the strong and strong with the weak and small. The latter do not have recourse to the fast track assessment of applications. Is this right?

9. Planning is not a question of height limitation, etc. only; it is also one of good taste. Whatever happened to the Aesthetics Board or its present day equivalent? If this unit still functions, how can projects like the Vittoriosa Waterfront building next to St Angelo, the Tigné Point buildings, the Sliema Front, the Cambridge high-rise project get through? This board, or whatever its name, needs shaking up too.

What made me take the trouble to write this letter is my belief that only the Prime Minister can cut this Gordion Knot. We do not want to go back to the times when approval was the prerogative of the Minister, but it is time now to have another hard look at Mepa.