Mepa chairman Vince Cassar says the revision of development application fees in 2007 was a mistake. Photo: Chris Sant Fornier

Planning Authority chairman Vince Cassar told the House Environment and Development Planning Committee on Monday that the revision of development application fees in 2007 was a mistake.

Answering questions by Opposition MP George Pullicino, Mr Cassar said that the Government of the time had wrongly assumed that there would not be any reduction in development applications.

While it had calculated that with the increased fees Mepa would become self-sufficient, Mepa’s deficit rose to €22 million.

Mr Cassar said that, as far as he knew, no comparative studies were conducted with regard to the division of the environment from the planning sector. However, Mepa was analysing how the separation could be best implemented and how both authorities could best work together.

It made more sense for the environment, planning and resources authorities to work together and coordinate through a forum that would discuss related issues.

While Mr Pullicino asked whether it would have made more sense for Mepa to conduct a comparative study for one to better understand the best possible way how to separate the development and the environment, Mr Cassar said that there was an electoral manifesto on which the Government was elected and that he assumed that, when the planning and environment sectors were merged, no comparative study was conducted.

It was felt that these two sectors should be divided. However, this did not mean that the authorities would not maintain dialogue between them.

Charles Buhagiar (PL) said that one authority that was responsible for both planning and environment was a failure and that the environment should be given the same status as that of planning. The revised development application fees were counterproductive.

Answering a question by Charló Bonnici (PN), Mr Cassar said that those involved in the process of dividing Mepa were Environment Minister Leo Brincat, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Farrugia, Mr Cassar himself as Mepa Chairman, the Mepa CEO and the Chiefs of Staff of both ministers.

Committee chairman Marlene Farrugia said that the Government had a clear mandate to implement its policies. The PL had drafted its policies after holding several working groups.

Meanwhile, Alfred Baldacchino said that he regarded the issue as an issue of “better focus” rather than dividing Mepa.

He argued that all ministries had environmental responsibilities. One had to keep in mind that the environment was not a revenue-generating entity.

Mr Pullicino asked Mr Baldacchino how the polluter-pays principle should work.

Dr Farrugia explained to Mr Baldacchino that he was only to answer questions relating to statements made by him at an earlier stage. She accused Mr Pullicino of aiming to waste the committee’s time.

Mr Pullicino replied that he had a right to ask questions and asked Dr Farrugia to retract her previous statements.

Dr Farrugia said that she would not retract anything because he intervened when others were speaking.

Mr Baldacchino said that an economic activity that adversely affected the environment was not sustainable.

Engineer Marco Cremona said that 1.5 billion cubic metres of aquifer water were contaminated.

Malta was bound to have good aquifer water by 2015. This was impossible, so the Government requested the EU extend this period to 2027.

He believed that the Government would still not have rectified the situation on time.

He proposed a debate on water and appealed to the Government to draft a national agricultural plan.

Mr Buhagiar said that the sector was fragmented and he believed that an authority responsible for water should be set up.

Answering a question by Dr Farrugia, Eng. Cremona said that this was the first time he was given an opportunity to contribute in a Parliamentary Committee.

Mepa CEO Johan Buttigieg said that Mepa’s enforcement policies did not aim to sanction illegal buildings.

They were aimed at ensuring there was enough money for Mepa to be in a position to institute legal proceedings in case an illegal building was not demolished; to allow partial use of the property where only a part of the building was sanctioned; and to establish a penalty of €12,000 and a top-up of the bank guarantee in case of a breach of an order issued by Mepa.