As with most legislation, the key lies not only in its composition but also in its implementation. The new application fees being levied by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority are a case in point.
The fees being charged had not been changed in the 17 years since Mepa’s predecessor, the Planning Authority, was established. There is no doubt that the fees were due for a revision, at least to reflect inflation let alone the host of new economic realities that have cropped up in the meantime.
Opposition MP Roderick Galdes this week presented a parliamentary motion seeking to have the new fees repealed, after the Opposition Leader, describing them as “heavy taxes”, said on Sunday the party would be doing as much.
In reaction, the Prime Minister, addressing his own Sunday congregation, replied how the government would be putting the additional funds toward an oncology centre and “hundreds” of other good causes.
Both leaders are wrong.
Firstly, the upward revision of Mepa’s fees, a budget measure that became effective in mid-July, should not go directly toward building any oncology centre and it is misleading to say that the funds would go directly toward any other specific purpose.
That is precisely because the new fees were a 2010 budget measure marking the beginning of a new concept – that of seeing government entities holding the potential of generating revenue from the respective sectors in which they operate becoming self-sufficient and no longer relying on the central government for funding.
Here is where the implementation comes in. It needs to be ensured that the funds collected go toward the running of Mepa and into making the entity as self-sufficient as possible, and nowhere else.
They must not go into a central government kitty, only to be lost in its cavernous coffers.
The measure could, of course, indirectly fund an oncology centre since central government funding for Mepa, which averages out at €9 million a year, could very well be spent elsewhere.
As for the new rates themselves, the government argues they are proportionate to the size and nature of the development – for example, rates per square metre for apartments are lower than rates for villas, bungalows and penthouses.
As for the opposing stance, adopted by developers and now the Opposition the fees, really and truly speaking, are not all that exorbitant.
In terms of the effect on the average citizen - yes, fees for a home building permit have increased by 400 per cent…to €175. Considering the entire cost of building a home, is that really so high? The fee for a garage application has more than doubled – to €1,100 while the cost of a compliance certificate has increased from €11 to €60. Are such fees for new developments really all that exaggerated all things considered?
Others, such as the GRTU, have taken particular exception to the fees associated with larger developments. They have cried foul over how demolition permits have risen from €116 to €1,985. Is the latter such an incredible amount that it threatens to plunge the GRTU’s property development section into recession, especially considering the overall cost of demolishing and redeveloping a site? Another increase highlighted was in permits for extensions to commercial developments, which will now cost €453. Other increases were in respect to plants and machinery permits, which now cost €570, while the price of vertical extensions for quarries has been raised to €1,487.
These are neither heavy taxes, as the opposition describes them, nor are they funds for oncology centres, as the government would now have people believe. These are charges which were long overdue for revision and which need to be reinvested straight back into the running of Mepa.