‘Mepa passing test of credibility’

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority is steadily passing its first test of credibility, with all decisions it has validated after the reform having been decided well in time. The authority’s board members and directors will be asked for a statement of their assets, while a code of ethics for its employees is now ready to be presented to the unions representing them.

Winding up the debate on Mepa’s estimates for 2011, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said the main board would include two deputy chairmen in the persons of the chairmen of the environment planning commission, so that there would be greater consistency in direction and interpretation of policies when decisions were taken.

The screening system had helped to do away with up to 17 per cent of the total applications, rather than taking the time to consider and later refuse them.

Dr de Marco appealed to quarry owners to do everything necessary to achieve environment permits through the use of more modern systems that would reduce inconvenience to neighbours, failing which they would be stopped operating for non-conformity just like the Mediterranean Oil Bunkering Co. for not having a filtering system in their tanks.

In answer to comments by Labour MP Leo Brincat, he said Falzon Oils were being inspected up to five times a week and if found to be non-compliant they would be fined or stopped operating altogether, without any preferences.

The government felt it had a duty to help the owners of properties scheduled as national heritage to maintain them through various systems, such as VAT exemption or tax credits on maintenance costs.

Rather than being subsidised, Mepa had recently been given the faculty to charge for government-related work.

At the start of his speech Dr de Marco said the report for 2010 showed a huge reduction in complaints against up to 5,000 Mepa decisions per year, denoting greater consistency in the public’s perception. Even usually-critical NGOs now seemed happier with the reformed authority, which was now sometimes said to be too rigid.

To other comments by Mr Brincat on what he had called unjustified lifestyles by people at Mepa, Dr de Marco said that if the opposition MP had any details he should pass them on for investigation.

Efficiency had increased considerably, to the tune of more than 400 applications validated between January and May. This efficiency had also been made possible through the electronic submission of all applications, following a rather slow adaptation period.

Between them the two full-time boards that had replaced the three part-time development control committees had decided on a higher number of applications with a better level of decision. The system had done away with the criticism that the part-time DCCs had been made up of practising architects.

At 41 and 13 per cent the current respective approval and refusal rates compared well with the 47 and 13 per cent of the “old” Mepa structure. The rate of deferral was 23 per cent, which made sense because work on an application and changes thereto should be done well before an application was due to be decided on.

While the authority’s internal auditor was an employee, the person responsible for investigating it was now part of the Office of the Ombudsman, making for much-enhanced accountability.

On enforcement Dr de Marco said abuse could now not even be sanctioned, so it was useless for one to apply for sanctioning. The authority was moving more on the concept of compliance, convincing wrongdoers to remove illegal development before enforcement notices were served.

Mepa had started to show its teeth even on the environment. The saga of Hexagon House was doubly important because the employees there were also tasked with safeguarding the environment for the general population. Following the investments progress had definitely been made, as attested to by the mayor of Marsa.

Besides increasing the workforce of the Environment Directorate, the authority was laying more emphasis on environmental protection by demanding that any development must be sustainable and not give rise to bad neighbourliness.

On the industrial front, no development that was any less than 100 per cent conformant with EU directives would be issued with environmental permits, ITCP. Quarries were a source of big problems with dust nuisances, work practices and even illegal development in some cases.

Dr de Marco said Mepa had learnt from the Dwejra experience, even though it was not the disaster that the opposition had pictured. The EU had accorded the authority €4.5 million for the holistic management of Natura 2000 sites.

The government was adamant on strict criteria for the public procurement of green products.

Biodiversity must be safeguarded not only on the ground but also at sea, with four per cent of Maltese waters having been designated as marine protected areas where no development would be allowed except under strict conditions.

Mepa’s tariffs had been increased less on residential units than on industrial development. It was recognised that fees from development applications alone could not cover all Mepa costs, but the government insisted that the authority must never be subsidised, and the taxpayer should not be made to pay for private development.

A number of Mepa activities were undertaken for society in general, others for the safeguarding of EU directives especially for the environment, and some strategic work for the government in general. The authority had now been authorised to charge for work done for the government.

It was now time Dr de Marco said for the policies stage. A permanent policy review commission had been set up under the chairmanship of architect David Pace for policies that would be more reflective of the realities and needs of today. There had to be a wise balance between those wanting development and those not wanting it, but winning or losing must not be taken to mean that Mepa was inconsistent. Policies must be interpreted.

Nationalist MPs Ċensu Galea and Philip Mifsud also contributed to the debate.