This week we were given a preview of the long-overdue MEPA reform document: a promise made by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi on the eve of the March 2008 election.
It has taken almost two years for an initial report to be drawn up; but given the sensitivity of the Authority’s remit – which has inevitably pitted the country’s newfound environmental consciousness against the interests of an economically powerful construction lobby – the delay is perhaps understandable. Juggling these inimical concerns is a very narrow tightrope to walk; and judging by this week’s revelations, the initial steps appear to be promising.
What stands out most is a clear commitment to transform the previously part-time Development Control Commission boards – which included practicing architects, thereby inviting accusations of conflicts of interest – into two full-time boards with fixed-term members.
This is a positive step, as it reduces suspicion that in some cases, DCC decisions may have been taken to benefit the potential or actual clients of the board members themselves. One recent example was when architect Catherine Galea applied for a permit for one of the Polidano Group’s (Lidl) supermarkets... at a time when she herself presided over one of the DCC boards.
Under the new regime, board members will now have a fixed four-year term, and the members themselves selected after a public call for applications. This bodes well for the future, as the members should be altogether less dependent on the political whims of those who appoint them.
Also positive is the revelation that MEPA’s own directorate will be present in these meetings, in order to counter-balance a perceived ‘monopoly’ of architects in the planning process. Similarly, the decision to allow third parties the right to attend and participate these meetings can only enhance the authority’s previously dubious claims to transparency.
However, one possible risk of the new system is that it could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of paid MEPA officials, since both the Directorate and the new commissions will be composed exclusively of employees on the authority’s payroll. Ultimately, the success of the initiative will depend on the integrity and professional ability of the individuals chosen to fill out these roles.
Altogether less commendable, however, is that the proposed reform goes only half way towards addressing one of MEPA’s greatest and most controversial operational anomalies: its power to sanction illegal developments.
Removing this anomaly is a long overdue promise, originally made by Minister George Pullicino back in 2006, during the press conference announcing the extension of the development zone. And in fact, the reform document states that MEPA can no longer allow developments outside the building zones, or in ‘special conservation areas’, in breach of already approved plans.
All well and good: but unaccountably, this prohibition is limited only to developments carried out after May 2007. Nor is the official excuse (i.e., that MEPA took aerial photographs covering the whole island in 2007) particularly convincing. Anyone familiar with MEPA’s own website will know that aerial photos existed well before the arbitrary cut-off date.
One cannot help therefore suspecting that there may be another reason for the decision to absolve certain specific pre-May 2007 developments.
Another loophole left wide open by the proposed reform is the blanket exception granted to livestock farms – a loophole which has already been exploited to justify numerous questionable countryside developments.
On the other hand, it is extremely positive that no sanctioning will take place on developments carried out on scheduled property, irrespective of when these were carried out. The previous culture (i.e., that one first breaks the law and then expects the authorities to accept a fait accompli) was perhaps the single most detested aspect of MEPA’s attitude towards law enforcement in general.
By the same token, it is positive news that applicants will no longer have the right to appeal against enforcement orders in scheduled areas and SACs. But once again, the May 2007 cut-off date for such developments can only give the impression of an attempt to appease some illegal developments, but not others.
Meanwhile, there are individual proposals which can only be judged once placed into effect: for instance, the plan to replace the current Auditor with a Commissioner for Environment and Planning, working within the office of the Ombudsman.
The efficacy of this idea depends almost entirely on the person chosen for the post. This newspaper firmly believes that current MEPA auditor Joe Falzon, who gained public trust by speaking his own mind, should be re-confirmed in this new and strengthened role.
Be that as it may, one of the main hurdles for the success of the reform is that the Authority is still bogged down by irrational and absurd decisions taken in the past. As construction work begins on controversial development permits issued in the pre-2008 election building frenzy, these decisions are bound to return to haunt the government, and once again undermine public trust in the authority.
Ultimately – and despite its present good intentions – the government cannot expect to absolve itself of the sins committed in the very recent past.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
