'Lack of direction and consistency'

Opposition spokesman on planning Roderick Galdes and opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat yesterday took Mepa to task, accusing it of creating uncertainty through its lack of direction and consistency.

Mr Galdes said what interested the people were the decisions which Mepa was taking - or failing to take - that affected people's quality of life.

Everybody was still in the dark about the authority's reform, and this was exacerbating uncertainty not only on the part of personnel but also from clients who now felt that there were no policies they could rely on.

Permits in hand did not mean anything. From a monster, Mepa had become an active volcano. It had not even reacted to criticism over its role in permits issued in Baħrija and Mistra.

Mr Galdes said one could not revise the local plans before revising the structure plan.

Even Mepa's financial situation gave cause for concern. The government's subvention had run out in mid-year and the authority could not cope. The reason for a 20 per cent drop in applications during 2008 was that the year before, applications had increased by more than 30 per cent, applicants being fully aware that they could have their way with a looming general election.

Mepa's auditor had not minced words, saying that the system had been used in a way to create precedents which brought down the planning system and which would have long-term effects. Minister George Pullicino, formerly responsible for Mepa, had justified such permits.

What was happening in Mepa in no way compared to what had taken place in the pre-1992 Planning Area Permits Board. At least, the PABP approved planning development for social housing to give workers affordable housing.

Mr Galdes warned that there was also an economic slowdown, evidenced by the dearth of major projects so important to the economy. Where was the project to regenerate the area around the Grand Harbour? Why had development on SmartCity slowed down?

Mepa was now saying permits for penthouses were a concession. Denying developers who bought land or a building knowing full well that a penthouse was allowed in the scheme, would shoot property prices sky-high as these would have to recoup their investment.

During the life of the PAPB, the number of permits issued for housing had been supported by policies, drafted after reliable studies. Today, there were a myriad of empty properties which was not leading to a fall in property prices. Malta was left with an environmental slight. The country needed a long-term policy because lack of sustainability was felt everywhere.

There was no uniformity in the planning process, with the result that streets had become a hotchpotch of building lacking aesthetics and denuding village cores of their character.

More than 16,000 permits had been issued for houses in village cores to replace derelict properties, but the approved plans were not compatible with the character of the villages. This was why local councils were clamouring for a revision of the local plans.

Calling for consistency and efficiency, Mr Galdes said that the revocation of permits under clause 39 of the Planning Development Act did not make sense. This was meant only to be used when the developer gave false information in his application and not for Mepa to correct its mistakes.

He said that the process of reconsideration of applications was lagging behind and there was a huge waste of resources in the way letters were sent to applicants. Architects were also critical of Mepa's decision to hold DCC meetings in the morning, at the time when they were normally making site inspections.

Hexagon House had been bought for Lm2 million to house the authority's environmental department. But now there were doubts as to the wisdom of this investment, as expenses were mounting in a bid to stem the foul smells.

The subsidy scheme to restore wooden balconies had been yet another electoral ploy. The opposition had warned the government that the Lm60,000 earmarked were too small a sum, and now people were still waiting for their refunds.

Turning to urban improvement, Mr Galdes said that when a couple bought a derelict house for restoration, they were being stifled by bank demands because they simply did not have the necessary cash-flow to continue. The social principle was being eroded.

Investigations into environmental problems were indeed made, but then hardly any implementation was forthcoming, especially with regard to waste, air pollution and noise.

Last year, Mepa had taken decisions which impinged on its own reputation when it allowed the extension of ODZs.

Concluding, Mr Galdes reiterated that Mepa must be given direction and the minister responsible should carry the political responsibility for its decisions.

Opposition spokesman on the environment Leo Brincat said abuses had existed under the PAPB and also existed now under Mepa. The Prime Minister was missing out on the opportunity to redress abuses in planning. But Mepa continued to operate in the same manner. Dr Gonzi ought to have ensured that until the reform took place Mepa was to act in a more transparent manner.

The electorate remained disillusioned and many were not expecting much from the promised reform. Unless the government implemented the auditor's reports, his office might as well be closed down.

During a business breakfast Dr Gonzi had claimed that the Mepa reform could not be taken in isolation but in tandem with other considerations, such as the rent reform and water and electricity tariffs, so as to establish a balance between environment and development. Yet, the balance often tipped in favour of development.

The reform would not have the desired effect unless it was backed by a strong political will and based on transparency, enforcement and implementation. Mepa has lost its credibility and was viewed as a monster without restraint.

The authority's reputation had never been so low. Environmental issues should be considered before the permit was issued and not after, as in the case of the Fort Cambridge project.

Mr Brincat referred to the case of Dr Victor Scerri's farmhouse development in Baħrija, and said that he could not agree with Dr Scerri's statement that the permit was only being scrutinised because of his office as president of the PN. Mr Brincat rebutted that if the developer had been any other person this permit would not have been issued.

He, therefore, questioned the latitude of the Prime Minister's control over Mepa. Moreover, NGOs had publicly called upon Dr Gonzi to initiate an investigation of architect Robert Musumeci, who had several approved applications for development in ODZ areas in Siġġiewi.

He called on the Prime Minister to confirm whether he would act on this, and also to confirm whether there were any inconsistencies in those cases where persons were appearing on behalf of others to obtain the issue of compliance certificates.

Mr Brincat asked Dr Gonzi to publicly state whether Mr Musumeci was one of his consultants on the Mepa reform, as alleged by Astrid Vella of Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar.

Not only did the Prime Minister need to show strength with the powerful, but also to show that the environment was really a priority for the government. During his first year in office, the government had not implemented any of the proposals contained in its electoral manifesto. Moreover, things had continued to progress as they were before under minister Pullicino.

Concluding, Mr Brincat said the Mepa reform should be of a permanent character and such that would instil confidence and hope in people's opinion of Mepa.