Planning authority board member Giovanni Bonello said better results are achieved when planning and environment protection work hand in hand.

We are sending the wrong message that planning has nothing to do with the environment

He was reacting to the Labour Party’s electoral proposal to split Mepa’s planning and environmental roles, which sparked mixed reactions from those involved in the process.

“I support any measure that strengthens the protection of the environment. If I hear convincing reasons why splitting the planning from the environmental functions of Mepa would lead to a better safeguard of the environment, then I will be supporting this measure.

“As it is, I still believe that better results can be achieved if planning and environment protection go hand in hand. But I am open to persuasion,” Dr Bonello said when contacted.

Former Mepa auditor Joseph Falzon believes splitting the two functions is a good idea which “makes sense” but is wary about its introduction before solving other problems within the planning authority.

“We are not looking at the problems at the planning authority in a serious manner. There is a serious problem of political interference at Mepa.

“The law gives certain powers to the minister responsible and people appointed to the board.

“Certain employees are chosen by the government and are therefore political appointees, where the overriding qualification is politics,” he said.

Mepa had to be autonomous, especially the chairman, who should be ready to abide by the law in spite of what the minister decreed, Mr Falzon said.

Another issue of concern, he said, was the serious lack of accountability. The Robinson Report drawn up about five years ago found 50 per cent of case officers’ reports were defective and 17 per cent were outright unacceptable. Despite the report, everything remained unchanged, he said.

Mr Falzon also alluded to the problem of abuse, without going into the merits of whether this was down to the level of bribery or simply influence.

Enforcement is another matter of concern for Mr Falzon, who said this was not being done properly because there was no systematic plan.

“You should start from the big fish, not the small cases like an illegal room in a field,” he said.

“Reforms won’t work until these issues are addressed. Mepa needs to look after planning and stop there. And the Environment Protection Directorate should look at environmental aspects and stop there.

“Separating planning from the environment makes a lot of sense because, so far, the environmental arm has been like Cinderella,” he said.

Alternattiva Demokratika deputy chairman Carmel Cacopardo said Labour’s proposal to split the authority in two would only benefit developers.

“Our concern is that there is a lack of political will to ensure environmental governance being given the leading role. With planning on its own, you cannot really keep control,” he said.

Mr Cacopardo said the time was ripe for the building industry to be restructured.

“Mepa needs to be fused with the Malta Resources Authority because, even if you just look at the water aspect, you have Mepa responsible for sea water and inland seas and the MRA responsible for groundwater.”

Mr Cacopardo said the environmental section should have the leading role within Mepa.

“When you look at the Labour proposal in isolation, there are arguments for and against but when you see the bigger picture, the proposal of splitting does not make sense. We are sending the wrong message that planning has nothing to do with the environment when the two are interlinked,” he said.

Regarding the revision of planning fees being proposed by the Labour Party, Mr Falzon said it was not fair to lump the fees onto the developer.

Whether the planning authority should become financially self-sufficient was a political decision that needed to be taken but the community should also contribute towards Mepa, Mr Falzon said.

On his part, Mr Cacopardo said there were certain fees which could be reduced but the question to be asked was whether these fees were intended to recover costs or if they were a form of eco tax.

“We think there should be an environmental tax on development to discourage certain projects,” he said.

Who will solve Mepa’s clashes, asks PM

The planning and environmental aspects of the planning authority are bound to clash, but Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi asked yesterday who would resolve such issues if they were to be separated.

Reacting to Labour’s proposal to split Mepa’s planning and environmental roles, Dr Gonzi said this was the first and most obvious question to be asked on this proposal which, in his opinion, did not make sense.

“If the planning and the environmental arms clash, who’s going to win? They will clash on every single application. Who’s going to resolve this clash? Is it going to be the minister? Is it going to be Joseph Muscat? Is it going to be Parliament? These are the dilemmas,” he said.