Kurt Sansone
Former minister who fathered authority lambasts Mepa reform
The proposed blueprint for Mepa reform "dangerously" concentrated the power to decide on permits in the hands of a few people, according to former Nationalist minister Michael Falzon.
Mr Falzon, who was the minister responsible for the creation of the Planning Authority in 1992, disagreed with the proposal to have the members of the Development Control Commission boards employed on a full-time basis.
He insisted this change would do away with the system of "checks and balances" that was in place allowing independent board members to contradict the case officer if deemed necessary.
Describing case officers as the "enemies of applicants", Mr Falzon said the reform made Mepa more efficient in refusing permits.
"I believe there is an inherent danger in concentrating power in the hands of fewer people," Mr Falzon said.
He also criticised the removal of permit reconsiderations, insisting the reform failed to address the concerns of the "little man".
The notion of shifting the policymaking function directly to the Office of the Prime Minister also came under fire.
"This goes against the spirit of the original concept to remove as much power as possible from the hands of ministers," Mr Falzon said.
On the other hand, Alter-nattiva Demokratika environment spokes-man Carmel Cacopardo wel-comed the proposal to transfer the policymaking function away from Mepa.
He said the Green Party preferred a situation where the planning and environment functions of the authority were separated, something which the reform did not consider.
AD applauded the reform's insistence on the need to channel negotiations on proposals for development at directorate level and away from the DCC.
However, Mr Cacopardo said the three-member boards could be too small especially when dealing with projects in sensitive areas.
He welcomed the proposal to appoint a full-time DCC since it addressed the conflicts of interest of current part-time members but criticised the fact that the reform did not contemplate a public hearing by a parlia-mentary committee for app-ointed board members to ascertain their suitability.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Neville Cassar
Jul 11th 2009, 18:40
Sometimes I wish I had the power to flatten most of the buildings and site’s that I see .Recently I was in Gozo at Marsalforn and the manner of buildings that narrowed the road and foot paths is disgraceful as one walks up hill each house door have higher door step without uniformity another thing which I noticed a wall build on a balcony leading to the top, presenting a shanty town facade . I am sorry to say its who you know to get away with what you want, it is a matter of vote catching .
Martin C Galea
Jul 11th 2009, 16:07
I always thought that MEPA should have the policy EXECUTION part removed from their remit. Policy MAKING was never a problem, but the execution certainly was.
I always laugh when I see the part of the permit stating "should not detract from the visual amenities of the area". Where I live, in Bidnija, on the road to the shooting ranges, there is a row of houses, all at least 5 metres back (and some are 10 metres) from the road, all with front gardens and of matching heights. A house was built, only 2 metres back from the road, and now, when we look left, we see a lovely white wall, instead of the lovely trees we could see before. When I complained to MEPA about that (I saw what was happening when the foundations were being dug, apart from the fact that the PA notice was stuck on the wrong plot of land, which we also complained about), and also the uprooting of a mature carob tree, all that happened was that I was threatened by the family of the owner, and nothing was investigated. Talk about efficient execution. MEPA in its haphazard execution has completely ruined the islands.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jul 11th 2009, 10:58
I agree that concentrating the powers of MEPA into the hands of fewer and fewer people is dangerous. It will not solve anything and it does not address the notorious tendency of MEPA to be strong with the weak and strong with the weak and of finding “legal” means of sanctioning massive and scandalous violations of the ODZ regulations by the high and mighty while obstructing reasonable maintenance and minor repairs of old field rooms.
The readily available effective solution of these rampant abuses is to lift MEPA’s immunity from scrutiny in the law courts of its brazen and outrageously flexible and incoherent interpretation of the building regulations in accordance with the identity of the applicant and his architect.
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Jul 11th 2009, 10:55
Mr Falzon, a former Minister has a wide range of practical experience in different areas of public administration, besides being an experienced architect himself.His views carry much weight.
In my opinion what he says makes a lot of sense.Checks and balances make up the essence of democracy.
I am not well versed in the MEPA procedures; however I think it is reasonable to provide for an appeal from a case officer's decision. I would suggest that the Appeals Board should be chaired by a judge or magistrate ( serving or retired) and that it should include both an architect and a representative of environmental organisations as assessors. The Appeals Bord should hold its sittings in public and give reasons for its decisions. The decisions would be taken by the Chairman, provided that when the two Members agree, the Chairman's decision should mirror the opinions on which both Members are in agreement. The Chairman should have the power to order ( once only) a reconsideration of a permit if he deems there are justified grounds for such reconsideration.
J Galea
Jul 11th 2009, 10:23
Correct me if you will but wasn't MEPA created to remove planning decisions from politicians and the pressures they face and often succumb to? Doesn't the proposed reform reverse that decision? Wouldn't it be better to strengthen the planning functions and independence of MEPA and give judges rather than politicians the last word on planning laws? I hope I am wrong but it seems to me that allowing politicians (of all parties) the last word on planning in Malta will ensure the quick death of what remains of our natural environment. Welcome to the concrete jungle.