Reading though the Malta Environment and Planning Authority reform proposals over and over again, I cannot but conclude that whoever fashioned them failed to analyse Mepa's weaknesses before attempting to address them.
For the purposes of this contribution, I am limiting myself only to the problems encountered by the ordinary citizen who applies for a development permit approval from Mepa. In this case, the proponents of the Mepa reform based themselves on hearsay and biased suggestions rather than on the hard facts, proposing a new system that is heavily biased in favour of objectors - whatever their motives.
They completely failed to try to improve Mepa's behaviour in its rapport with the ordinary applicant who would need a development permit probably once or twice in a lifetime.
Unless drastic changes to the proposals are made, the PN's electoral promise to increase Mepa's efficiency, consistency, transparency and accountability will never materialise.
To my mind, there are two serious defects in Mepa's current way of processing development applications. These are over-regulation and the negative mindset of case officers. Both have been completely ignored, while the reform proposals seek to dismantle the checks and balances inherent in the current system. As a result, the common citizen stands to get even worse treatment from Mepa than he or she gets at present.
Over-regulation has become the root of many an evil within Mepa. I do not think that in the whole world there are any 100 square kilometres that are regulated by so many policies, rules, and guidelines in the planning sphere and that are - to boot - changed so often.
Within 20 years, we have turned full circle - from a system where rules did not exist to a system where too many rules abound. The boffins at Mepa tried to substitute basic common sense with a policy and a regulation for every circumstance - an impossibility that has led to Mepa's failure to do its job properly. The idea that having so many rules will lead to accountability and consistency was a very shortsighted one and the system ended doing the opposite.
Local Plans have continued to exacerbate the problems with different policies for different localities; the splitting up of the same locality into a number of areas with different height limitations and policies; and the over-the-top allocation of primary and secondary - and even tertiary - town centres, raising the stature of some localities to that of New York.
Mepa officials today trip over their own rules: going by the book, one can justify both the approval and the refusal of practically any permit application! Even worse is the fact that these rules have become an end unto themselves rather than instruments to an end. The net result is that Mepa will approve any rubbish so long as no rules are broken and refuse many a piece of good architecture because it breaches some rule somewhere. Piano's project for the Valletta entrance area, for example, breaches so many Mepa rules that it stands no chance of being recommended for approval if it gets the same treatment that is meted to the ordinary citizen.
It is indicative that 20 years ago, a building permit consisted of one A4 sheet of paper while today four or five sheets full of conditions is the norm; incidentally thus creating a self-wrought headache for Mepa's enforcement section.
The other serious problem is the negative mindset of case officers. From day one, case officers were not encouraged to exchange ideas with applicants and rather than considering a proposal holistically from a planning perspective, their task was just to check whether in the proposal there is anything that is remotely in breach of one of the myriad policies, regulations and guidelines.
They were obliged to recommend a refusal of an application if there is one such breach - however irrelevant it may be to the case at hand - as discretion was to be exercised only by the Development Control Commission (DCC). Situations abound where applicants or architects were told by case officers that a proposal should basically be approved but they have to stick to their obligation to recommend a refusal. In short, case officers were consciously directed by Mepa's Planning Directorate not to use their brains but to act solely as robots.
How these same officers are going to suddenly change their mindset and reverse their negative attitude beats me. The reform proposals put more responsibility on case officers, urging them to discuss and dialogue with applicants and their architects as if the parameters that these officers have had to abide to for so many years never existed!
The proposed reform ignores these two flaws in Mepa's way of doing things and proceeds to fashion out a new system in such a manner as if they do not exist.
Setting up a DCC that is part and parcel of the Mepa internal set-up, abolishing reconsiderations, and banning 'negotiations' with the DCC are 'reforms' that would have been certainly contra-indicated if the realities of over-regulation and the negative mindset of Mepa officers were remotely considered.
micfal@maltanet.net