More on Mepa and its detractors

One can say it yet again, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is never out of the news. In its restructured form, it is there once more over what, in the scheme of things, might be considered a trivial matter, related to the government’s objective to make Mepa pay its way. That objective, aside from leading to some invoicing errors, has dampened the demand for building permits, according to some of the authority’s fiercest critics.

According to other critics, who fire their barbs from a different angle, that is no bad thing.

The latter place their criticism and observation on the premise that, according to some reports, there are around 70,000 vacant dwelling units in Malta and Gozo. That over-supply stands little chance of being taken up in the foreseeable future, if ever. That being so, aren’t we risking replicas of Ireland’s ghost towns and further dangerous depression of what in reality is a property bubble?

The argument is not without its logic. It is countered not by Mepa itself, but by the market. Despite the overhang of dwellings for sale, developers are still intent on building more. Some of them are busy snapping up terraced houses, semi-detached or detached residences, built as recently as 30 to 40 years ago, knocking them down and developing under the three-storey scheme. Never mind that many such new developments have yet to sell out, or to sell at all.

Their owners are prepared to risk their money, actual own cash or borrowed. They argue that new apartments are better designed than thousands of the overhang, built according to skimpy plans. Whether that is true or not will get its answer, yet again, from the market. Judging by the number of these new properties which have simply been added to the property overhang, the market is not in great agreement.

On the other hand, market operators say that there is a demand from first-time buyers and, properly priced, new apartments do sell, though not as much as developers would like. If any action should be taken at all, runs another line of thinking, it is by Mepa itself, which should review the three-storey policy, as it is destroying the character of relatively young areas which had been limited to two storeys at most.

Mepa has not reacted to that reasoning, which seems to be very sound. At the other end of the market there are heavyweight developers of what they term as luxury apartments. A number of them claim that what they build, they sell, despite the high price-bracket, so why should they be constrained by new controls? Their logic stems from their bank balance. If they can satisfy their bankers, and if there really remains a demand from high net worth individuals, why should Mepa contemplate intervening?

Mepa is also criticised – or rather, the government is – for combining environment protection and property development planning in one unit. There is an inherent contradiction, some say. Others reply that the contradiction is best addressed from under one roof, albeit by sections operating at arm’s length from each other.

Another type of criticism that continues to be fired at Mepa is that it remains too slow in processing building applications. The construction industry is in a clear downturn.

Mepa can help by speeding up its processing. It has intensified its enforcement activities, but has not matched that by more energy in processing applications, even though the reform aims at that by empowering architects, who apply on the developers’ behalf, much more than they have been empowered in the past.

Reforms take time to take off properly. But more speed where a project justifies would help. One application which hit the headlines recently (e.g. The Times, July 25) is that to redevelop the former Ħal Ferħ complex at Għajn Tuffieħa – Golden Sands – into a prime luxury site. To promote their project while it is being assessed the promoters have set up a page on Facebook.

Social networking is the rage. While it displays abysmal levels of inarticulation and quasi-illiteracy, it also serves to bring issues into the limelight, in addition to linking people from all strata.

The response to the Golden Sands plans has been mixed, reported The Times. Some like it. Some hate it, even presuming to criticise its layout.

I haven’t seen the plans other than through the artist’s impression carried by The Times. But the details describing it – especially maintaining a low height, avoiding high density and providing extensive landscaping – suggest that this will be a vast improvement on the existing ghastly group of former military buildings which it will replace.

The promoters entered into a dialogue with Facebook detractors and admirers. Which is all to the good in a society opening up also through the latest means of communication. Yet the ball, as I see it, is in Mepa’s court. The authority has to be fully satisfied regarding its parameters and concerns. What counts, as with other applications, is the time it takes to do that.