The situation within Mepa, being responsible for both planning and the environment, was no longer acceptable, Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon said yesterday.

Winding up the debate in second reading of the Development Planning Bill, Dr Falzon said Mepa did not rise to expectations and separating its planning and environmental arms was the best way forward. The earlier people got out of the frame of mind of the old Mepa, the better.

The two new authorities would be separate but expected to work together, creating a balance and protecting the environment. All eNGOs, except one, had expressed themselves in favour of the demerger while the Opposition had abstained.

This piece of legislation should not be seen in isolation, he said, adding that it contained legal certainty and offered better quality planning. The two authorities would be on the same footing.

Dr Falzon revealed that since Mepa fees had been reduced by the Labour administration, there had been a 43 per cent increase in applications for development permits, leading to an 11 per cent increase in income.

The promised consultation with the eNGOs would not be a “sham-consultation”. Genuine proposals would be taken on board.

Separating its planning and environmental arms is the best way forward

He respected “genuine” eNGOs but took those that were “less genuine” with “a pinch of salt”. It was a shame there had been talk between some eNGOs about how “now was the opportune time to hit the PL”.

Earlier, Family Affairs Minister Michael Farrugia said that when he heard the Opposition speaking about democracy he could not help remembering Mepa directors who had been hand picked without calls for applications, qualifications and real abilities.

Now one of those people was representing environmental NGOs in their criticism of the government’s plans, but she had never stopped abuse of the environment within Mepa.

The authority had become known for having friends with irregular buildings in outside development zones which were eventually sanctioned, without the Environment Directorate having the power to lift a finger.

Parliamentary Secretary Roderick Galdes said that Malta’s unique merging of environment and planning under Mepa had proved to be a marriage of convenience between divergent interests that had never worked or reached its aims. Even NGOs had started calling for their separation. He was sure that in spite of its reticence, the Opposition agreed in principle with what the government was doing, even if not in method or format. In whose interests was it now calling for more time?

Charles Buhagiar (PL) said planning reflected economic development. Times had changed since the 1960’s when the onus was to have decent housing, factories and hotels and restaurants. There was now a need for smaller houses due to smaller families, thus more land was required for development.

The true role of the planner was his forward vision. Traffic had increased but no plans had been made for emissions and congestion. Mepa did nothing. The same could be said for the photovoltaic panels and it was only now that a new directive was coming into force to regulate their height.

Mr Buhagiar asked for a re-think on the appointment for the members of the Planning Appeals Board. He said it would be better if these members were appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister rather than by the Prime Minister himself.

He expressed fear that if there was a change of government, these would have to resign and until the Board is re-appointed, appeals would accumulate.

Minister Helena Dalli said the need for Mepa reform was an open secret and now there would be a clear separation of powers between the legislative and the executive. This would serve developers better while protecting the environment as there would be better coordination and governance.

When the question was called, the Opposition called for a division. It will be taken on Monday morning.