Perhaps no other public institution has been as discussed, criticised and even reviled as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa). Set up almost 20 years ago it ended up being swatted away by some of the very people who had come up with its idea. It is now heading for considerable review as the Labour government intends to split planning and the environment.

That proposal in itself runs counter to the purpose of setting the two activities under one authority. It has already been sharply criticised, though others are in complete agreement with the Government.

The years will tell what the outcome will be. Separation could mean more focus is given to each activity. It could also mean that, unless there is careful monitoring by both the Prime Minister and the public, the two activities start running counter to each other. Hopefully that will not be the case and the shortcomings attributed to Mepa will be removed, never to appear again. Given that such a large part of Malta is built up and the ugly development that has been allowed to take place with official sanctioning, proper planning is a very essential activity. That is so both in terms of applications for new development in line with official policies as they mature, and also in regard to re-development, which could become a major activity.

Development is equally important and has a meaning much wider than the development of land and the erection of immovable property. For instance, it seems to me it has to work hand in hand with Transport Malta to bring about a transport master plan which addresses the problems of congestion which already exist and threaten to grow much bigger.

However the split is made, one area which cannot wait – and that will need to be tackled once the split is made – is the time it takes for decisions to be reached. The bureaucratic monster which Mepa has become cannot be allowed to stay alive. Out of fairness to applicants and to the objectives of economic development. That does not mean that Mepa now or later when it is split up should be allowed to be lax in the way it/they tackle applications.

But laxity is one thing, end-less bureaucratic dragging of feet another.

Notwithstanding the various efforts that have been made through time to speed up the assessment and decision-taking process, complaints about delays continue to surface daily.

Fact is that trust has been lost in Mepa. It very badly needs to be built up again so that the separate entities can take off from a sound position.

Meanwhile life goes on and Mepa has just released a set of new or amended policies for public discussion before final decisions are taken. What signs of discussion there have been so far are negative reactions from various environment-oriented bodies which say that development in outside development zones is going to be aggravating.

Depart from agritourism as practised in Italy, for instance, and go for the bed-and-breakfast model offered in, say, Britain

To an extent these look like knee-jerk reactions. Yet one should not and can not dismiss them as worthless. One hopes that they will be fleshed out before too long and that others will join in to give their opinions. That is what consultations are for.

One proposal which struck me is that concerning possible measures to create agritourism by allowing controlled development in outside development zones. The draft policy provides that farmers, individually or in groups, may apply to build up to 10 rooms for use as agritourism accommodation facilities when their land exceeds 60 tumoli.

Farmers who have sufficient land space will be allowed to build between seven and 10 rooms with a floor space not exceeding 400 square metres. Decisions on whether more than one floor could be built would depend on the land. A committee will be set up to confirm that farmers are genuine and the land is being used for farming.

I do not find myself enthused by this proposal. I doubt that Malta is suitable for agritourism. It is too small with not much countryside with farms left to explore. To the extent that an attempt should be made, I do not think that farmers can be induced to consider units of seven to 10 rooms. That would constitute a small motel beyond the capability of a single person or team of farmers to handle while at the same time continuing to farm their land.

The scheme will only make some sense if farmers team up with commercial interests.

I would suggest a different approach, to the extent that full-time farmers and farms still exist in Malta and Gozo. Depart from agritourism as practised in Italy, for instance, and go for the bed-and-breakfast model offered in, say, Britain. A genuine farmer can be allowed to build up to three rooms with suitable amenities to offer them on a bed and breakfast basis. Size of farm does not necessarily come into it.

Some passing trade might be attracted. More likely bookings from abroad can be taken. For that purpose, aid farmers with a small back-up force to promote and take bookings, for a fee to cover expenses. Ultimately the proposal could be extended to an agritourism farmers’ co-operative. Small units will also have the advantage of not bringing too much traffic to the countryside, to the extent that the venture is successful.

Who is to say who is right before a proposal is actually put into practice? Time alone will tell.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.