In 2003, Ġanni, a full-time farmer tilling over 50 tumoli of land, applied to construct a small swimming pool in his garden – a well deserved treat for a farmer with a back-breaking daily struggle with nature. It took the Malta Environment and Planning Authority some two years before Ġanni was told that he had to prove that his residence had a building permit, otherwise his application would be refused.

Ġanni, today approaching retirement age, had been living in his house since he was 13 years old! Fortunately, his father had kept a copy of the building permit and plans of the house that he himself had built.

Mepa insisted that Ġanni had to apply to sanction the minor differences in the residence before the swimming pool application could be determined. Ġanni complied with this request.

Ġanni was asked by Mepa, from time to time, to produce his ID card details proving he resides in the house, copies of Electoral Register entries, water and electricity bills, notarial contracts, pitkali returns for his produce, Land Registry plans showing the fields he tilled and the greenhouses he looked after, among other documents. In short, this process took another three years to complete and his application for the sanctioning of the house, and not of the swimming pool, was approved in 2008. The long dreamed of swimming pool was now in sight, five years down the line.

A couple of months after the application was approved, while waiting for the permit to arrive, Ġanni was informed by Mepa that before the permit for the house could be issued, he had to sign a notarial deed limiting the eventual sale of his house to another full-time farmer. Ġanni was forced to appeal to the Planning Appeals Board to ward off this unconstitutional demand. It is a fundamental human right to own property and dispose of or bequeath it as you wish.

The swimming pool was now out of sight again and would remain so for another four years until the Appeals Board decided in his favour in 2012.

Ġanni, now 10 years older and still hoping to enjoy swimming in his own pool some day, will have to wait a while longer. After this tortuous ordeal, Mepa had the audacity to appeal this Appeals Board decision in the courts of law, where the case is still pending.

This is just one example of the sort of labyrinthine journeys that some genuine and law-abiding applicants endure to secure and enjoy their rights. Clearly the system does not function justly and, often, Mepa misses the wood for the trees.

The application process ought to be more practical and efficient with smaller projects too.