Focus on the planning system

Mepa is arguably the most powerful authority in Malta. Of all public authorities, it must be acknowledged that Mepa functions and functions well. One must however acknowledge that in every entity or body there is good and bad and there is always room for improvement in whatever is done.

Presently, there is a great misconception that Mepa is responsible for a long list of woes. However, the criticism levelled at Mepa is often facile as the planning process and the structure of the regulator are both very complex. For this reason it is often incomprehensible to Joe Public how an application recommended for refusal is overturned and approved. To understand this one must look deeply into the structure of how policies and decision making are made.

One cannot expect Mepa to improve when it is being continuously criticised for whatever it does. If a permit is approved there is criticism. When permits are not approved ore even revoked, in the case of irregularities, economic Jeremiahs start their dire dirges.

The application approved by the Development Control Commission is frequently different from that assessed by the Planning Directorate because the DCC would have discussed in public the application with the architect. This was introduced as a system of checks and balances to ensure that the client and society are better served. The result has however raised a level of frustration that is rendering null the democratic element that had originally been intended.

The DCCs have earned for themselves and for Mepa, even if, perhaps, unwarranted, certain disdain, which will not be easily overcome. More effective and responsible boards are needed at Mepa. They need to be seen to be transparent and accountable. All too frequently chairmen of the DCCs are either peremptory in their dealings with the public or else mumble their way through proceedings or, even worse, appear to be dithering and indecisive. Having a practicing architect as a board member might lead to a conflict of interest and lead to possible abuse. One must not only be but also appear to be very transparent and impartial in order to avoid being labelled as employing two weights and two measures.

Mepa reform is not an easy task. It is surely easier overcoming the financial deficit of our country and returning to a strong economy than reforming Mepa. Money involves numbers. Mepa involves humans. I am writing this shortly before the Prime Minister announces the details of the reform.

One aspect that is a sore spot in many of our villages is the disruption caused by the indiscipline and sheer lack of respect shown by a large number of operators in the property development and construction industry. Many times Mepa is criticised for permitting contractors to work without taking all precautionary measures. One cannot help but wonder how fair this criticism is.

The Building Industry Consultative Committee recently issued a discussion paper identifying, inter alia, objectives for the coming years. Listed as its first objective is: "To consider issues relating to the construction industry within an overall context of the national economic, social and environmental objectives. Issues relating to construction cannot be considered in isolation".

It is heartening, to say the least, to have this body acknowledge the importance of the mutual impact of society and the construction industry.

Tardily, perhaps, it is recognising that the frustrations voiced so often by residents may not always be against a development but more against having to suffer dust and noise pollution, damage to their property, the arrogance of contractors and so on. If the construction operators have due regard to the neighbours' quality of life, I am almost certain that the amount of complaints against developments will decrease dramatically.

Local councils can help in this direction. They can monitor developments, at a fee borne by developers and/or contractors, and ensure good practice and good neighbourliness.

Safety measures must be taken more seriously and construction sites must be better controlled. People have had enough of living in fear next to a construction site. We must address these issues immediately and local councils must be given the opportunity to work closer with the relative authorities to ensure that whatever goes on in their locality will be done with great care and with the least inconvenience.

Aesthetics must also be taken much more seriously by Mepa. We should not only be using our energy to control height limitations of developments and reducing penthouses, or semi-basements, but we must also be very keen on aesthetics, on how washrooms, water tanks and other installations will look when finished and how façades will be rendered in different areas. We must also be persistent on all services installed on washrooms and we must make sure we will have better quality architecture that distinguishes the different parts of our towns and villages. The planning system should be geared towards the beautification of Malta for the benefit of both the public and the tourism industry.

There is room for a lot of improvement and this is all possible because we have the right people in the right places for making decisions and moving things forward.

Mepa chairman Austin Walker is a case in point. Hard working yet approachable, he is a person who brought a breath of fresh air to Mepa. Decisions have started to be made.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is another case in point. He always takes the bull by the horns and when he says something he does it. He promised a good Mepa reform and we can all rest assured that it will be radical and enduring. This does not mean that everyone will be applauding this reform. It does mean however that this is a time when all those who wish this country to be really democratic and to have institutions that are strong and work towards the general good will pull up their socks and contribute.

Silence will also be noted.

Dr Castaldi Paris is mayor of Lija.