Yet another Mepa fiasco

The decision taken by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to withdraw some 3,500 bills for printing expenses sent to all applicants of development permits within 48 hours of them being issued reflects the kind of blundering way Mepa is going as a result of the infamous reform that has solved nothing but only managed to complicate even the simplest of things. This was no ordinary ‘administrative mistake’ as Mepa has claimed.

Way back in the Budget speech last October, we were told that as a result of the new tariff structure, Mepa will be self-sustaining and no government subvention would be necessary.

This meant, of course, that applicants for development permits were not only going to pay for the expenses involved in the processing of their permits but also to subsidise other authority activities that have nothing to do with development permits, mainly in the environmental sector.

The new exorbitant tariffs were clearly not carefully thought out. In some cases, the charge based on square metres of affected area resulted in a ridiculously and impossibly high demand that nobody was prepared to pay.

In the case of villa and bungalow areas, since the rate per square metre made no difference between the actual area to be built upon and the open spaces around it, the system is effectively encouraging overdevelopment, with up to four units being built instead of one on the same area of land.

Seven months into the year, the authority now depends on government financial support more than ever before. The number of permits accepted for processing has dwindled dramatically to about 80 a month and this has drastically affected – negatively – Mepa’s income.

Exorbitant increases in the value of bank guarantees being demanded by Mepa and the exaggerated tariffs, together with the downturn in the property market, have discouraged developers from applying for permits. Every month the authority is only getting a fraction of its regular expenses – that include salaries – from permit fees and it cannot survive without a high level of government financial support.

Information given in answer to a recent parliamentary question revealed that in the eight months up to May this year, government subvention to Mepa amounted to €7 million – a figure that is over the amount of the authority’s annual subvention in the past.

It is obvious that the government and Mepa have painted themselves into a corner.

In order to get out of this corner, the government ‘revisited’ the concept of a self-sustain­­­- ing authority, distinguishing between the planning and development side of Mepa – which should be self-financed through the tariffs – and those other aspects of its work through which it renders a service to government and to the community.

When the reform was put into effect, the e-applications system became mandatory and all planning applications were to be submitted digitally by the architect, making the authority officially responsible for the printing of all drawings. The idea was to reduce the number of printed hard copies of drawings required for all development applications.

Mepa claimed that tariffs for its services covered by a legal notice issued earlier, did not include for the cost of these printing services – hence the new bills.

However, it tried to make a short cut by classifying all applications into three categories charging three different rates according to category. This charge was levied irrespective of the stage that the application has reached when this factor has a direct influence on the number of printed drawings necessary.

These bills were issued without those billed being given any information on how they were worked out and whether they reflected the actual expenses of paper and printing that they were meant to cover. The bills were illegal because they turned out to be yet another administrative charge not covered by a Legal Notice.

One would have thought that once Mepa’s work through which it renders a service to government was going to be paid by the government, the development fees were to be reduced to reflect only the real cost of the processing of applications.

In any case, the authority should have come to its senses and considered the paper and printing expenses as already covered by its exorbitant fees.

No such luck was in sight. Instead, it made yet another costly ‘administrative’ mistake and sent 3,500 bills to whoever was on its list of applicants.

If Mepa really believes in accountability, this is the right occasion to prove it: whoever is responsible for this mess should be asked to carry the can.

The people’s perception of the seriousness of the authority is at stake unless this is publicly done.

After all, Mepa expects the highest standards from everybody and does not look lightly at trivial administrative mistakes made by architectural practices and applicants.

It does therefore seem that while the authority expects high administrative and ethical standards from everybody else, it is not capable of observing that same level of standards when it comes to deliver its own job – incidentally, a situation much like that of the now defunct News of the World.

micfal@maltanet.net