A couple of years ago a Hamrun couple filed an objection to excavations going on in their road. MEPA reacted by publicising the fact that an enforcement notice had been issued in respect of the couple’s aluminium balcony.
Recently Astrid Vella of Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar kicked up a justifiable fuss over the Fort Cambridge mega-project and that was proposed for Ulysses Lodge. MEPA Chairman Andrew Calleja declared that henceforth the Authority would be “boycotting” FAA (later, when faced with wave of bad publicity, he tried a spot of damage limitation and says he was misinterpreted). Last week an anonymous letter with details on Vella’s minor planning infringement (a keyhole window overlooking a main road) mysteriously wafted onto the desks of local newspaper editors.
Carmel Cacopardo, former investigative officer with MEPA’s audit office, reveals that chairman Andrew Calleja had a meeting with developers whose application for planning permission still has to be decided on by the board he chairs. Cacopardo becomes persona non grata to the MEPA people. The Board refuses to renew his contract as investigative officer, citing his articles about planning policy and his chairing of a meeting about planning issues for AD as reasons for the decision.
Notice a trend here? Every time someone queries MEPA’s decisions in a public forum, MEPA sees they get their comeuppance in some way or other. This is done in a number of ways. Sometimes MEPA fishes out its critics' minor planning infringements and denounces them to all and sundry as major eco-criminals. This was the case with the Hamrun couple whose aluminium balcony – admittedly illegally constructed and as ugly as aluminium balconies can be – was just one of the many found in that street. Although all illegal developments and structures are to be condemned, I find it very strange that MEPA comes down in full force upon an aluminium balcony and keeps mum about much bigger developments carried out without a permit. Ever heard a squeak from MEPA about the Solemar hotel built on public land without a permit? I thought not. And MEPA’s PRO Sylvana Debono can be extremely forthcoming when it comes to denouncing critics, but less so when it comes to other queries. I once emailed her asking about the number of enforcement notices issued and direct action taken in respect of a group of companies. Since she was so up-to-date with the details of irregular aluminium balconies I figured she would be just the person to bring me up to speed. Nothing doing. “This information can be extracted from our website www.mepa.org.mt,” was the terse non-reply. “Thanks for nothing,” I mumbled to myself, noting the marked difference in the way MEPA acted with people who committed insignificant planning peccadilloes and others who commit much more serious planning sins which remain unpublicised by the Authority.
Some may ask whether any of this really matters. They will argue that after all MEPA can choose which cases to highlight and which to bury in the depths of its website. Sylvana Debono is entitled to dig up the planning dirt and spatter it in the face of MEPA’s critics while ignoring queries about the irregular activities of others. Strictly speaking this is true. MEPA can pick and choose which infringements to denounce and which to keep tight-lipped about. However, the pettiness of the officials within the Authority who choose to retaliate to criticism by dredging up and publicising the infringements committed by their critics is worrying. It can be perceived as an attempt to intimidate objectors who bring up pertinent points about proposed development but who might have blotted their planning copybook in some small way. Yes, it’s true, one is supposed to practice what one preaches and people in glass houses should not throw stones. However I don’t see why having an illegal balcony should preclude someone from objecting to development which could have much greater repercussions on our architectural and archaeological heritage than his aesthetically displeasing aluminium bit. Not all illegal developments are of equal import.

Last year the MEPA audit office manned by Joe Falzon and Carmel Cacopardo unearthed something about MEPA Chairman Andrew Calleja that would have seen his equivalent in a non-banana republic sprinting to his computer to draft his resignation letter. They discovered that the Chairman was holding meetings with developers whose application for planning permission was still pending before the Board chaired by Calleja. These meetings do not seem to have been minuted and we do not know what was said or agreed upon by the persons asking for permission and the persons who had to grant that permission. We have no idea why such a meeting was necessary, what sort of advice or instructions were given and if they were all above board. These informal meetings were shrugged off by MEPA. The Chairman would “facilitate communication”, the meetings would serve to “facilitate a better understanding off the issues involved” and he could “help to unblock the situation where proposals get ‘jammed’ because of difficulties”. Finally, the killer argument – the one supposed to quash all objections – “the law does not preclude the Chairman from being involved in such meetings.”
This line of reasoning is flawed. The law might not specifically prohibit the Chairman from holding meetings with applicants but surely he must see that if Mr Joe Objector gets wind of his meeting with Mr Paul Developer, Joe Objector’s suspicions about what went on during those informal, unminuted meetings would be justifiably raised? Regardless of what Andrew Calleja did before assuming his role at MEPA, he should be aware of the fact that it is not good practice to hold a private meeting with a party to the planning process when this meeting is not subject to public scrutiny. It does away with the whole notion of the planning process being transparent at all stages. Rather than the image of Calleja the Great Communicator or Calleja the Great Facilitator, those informal meetings bring to mind pictures of a cosy relationship between the Authority and certain developers – a relationship from which the public is excluded. While it is true that the Chairman’s vote is not the only one that matters when it comes to granting or refusing planning permission, his vote might be decisive. The MEPA Board is a quasi-judicial body – it makes decisions which affect people’s civil rights and obligations. It should uphold the same ethical standards prescribed for judges. Knowing that one of the judges hearing an appeal is having a little chat with one of the parties, does not do much to instil public confidence in the process. Similarly, Andrew Calleja’s readiness to “facilitate” and instigate certain planning applications doesn’t do much to shore up MEPA’s credibility.

Why delve into the matter of the informal meetings again? Simply because I believe that the investigation about the matter was what set off the whole saga in which MEPA refused to re-appoint Carmel Cacopardo. His articles about the planning process, his chairing of an AD meeting came later, much later. The investigation also preceded Cacopardo’s application for a post with the Environment Directorate and his claim that the person appointed was less competent than he was. The investigation and the knowledge that its publication would show up the Chairman as being rather less circumspect than required, was what sealed Carmel Cacopardo’s fate. Because although the MEPA Audit Office should act as a watchdog, the Authority would prefer it to be a poodle that skips to heel when called. It is to Carmel Cacopardo’s credit that he has refused to play ball and downplay or ignore the serious malpractices carried out within the Authority. MEPA’s retaliatory action comes as no surprise. Carmel Cacopardo may not have an illegal aluminium balcony, but any other excuse will do.