This week, work will begin on the creation of artificial reefs off the Sliema coast. Can you explain how this decision was reached, who is funding it, and will there be more experiments in this direction? Also, will the future see more land reclamation than we are seeing now?

When we speak of the environment, most of us normally envisage greenery and rolling fields. However, the sea is also part of the same environment we live in, even if perhaps we tend to realise this mostly during the summer months. So MEPA is seeking to enrich the seabed habitats and for this reason the board recently approved the application for the deployment of an artificial reef. This will consist of specially-built identical concrete and limestone structures. It is an experimental project by MEPA, funded through the planning gain levied on the Portomaso project. In this way we are implementing the community gain concept which lies behind the imposition of these conditions. The results of the project will assist in the preparation of a policy document on artificial reefs. There are no plans for the deployment of similar artificial reefs for the time being. Such projects will help us assess if there is any benefit in utilising one material instead of the other. However, there are a number of applications for the scuttling of vessels which may act as artificial reefs and these will be assessed on their own merits.

Land reclamation is an interesting concept and there are strong arguments in favour when you consider the tiny size of our islands. It may be seen as the only way to go when the current exhausted quarries are all reclaimed. When land is in such short supply, what better way can be found for the utilisation of our excavation and demolition waste? On the other hand, we know very well that there are constraints due to the protection that has to be afforded to areas rich in ecology. The presence of poseidonia meadows, which is a protected species under the Habitats Directive, is another element which will have to be considered carefully. So land reclamation must be well planned. We have asked experts from a Danish company to assist us technically on this subject matter and they will be coming over later on this year. We will persist in our endeavours to identify potential sites and will shortly have a clear way forward in this field.

Another press release recently issued has spoken of MEPA garnering EU funds for environmental programmes. How much has been obtained from the EU, how many programmes have been launched and what other programmes does MEPA have in mind?

In all, MEPA is currently participating in, or has applied for, funds for over 50 internationally co-financed projects. These include three large pre-accession projects and a Leonardo Mobility project. The total value of these projects exceeds €35 million, with MEPA’s share well over €5 million. Other proposals are currently being developed.

Of course, this does not mean that €5 million is a “pure” cash benefit. The real benefit of these programmes comes from extensive training envisaged in some of the projects, important surveys and data gathering exercises, procurement of costly air monitoring equipment, invaluable consultancy and vital international cooperation. For example, with the help of the Leonardo project, members of our staff have obtained placements within planning organisations around Europe. This has not only helped them acquire experience but has also aided the cross-fertilisation of ideas. We have a lot to gain from these programmes but we also have a lot to give, certainly in terms of experience gained in specific areas. This is important as, according to EU financial aid rules, we have to provide some form of co-financing, whether in cash or in kind.

In the month of July alone, MEPA has approved four large technical assistance and capacity building projects under EU’s Transitional Facility programme, 4 INTERREG transnational cooperation projects, two proposals for the European Regional Development Fund, and four smaller grants under the UK financial Assistance programme. These projects are due to start in the coming months.

As for the future participation in EU programmes, it will depend on a number of factors, including the availability of EU funds for participation. MEPA’s strategy is to apply for and participate in projects which address key national priorities within its business plan objectives. However, in order for us to be able to absorb all opportunities for funding such projects and being capable of managing same, MEPA requires to sustain its current resources - and we do have some concerns in this regard

What has happened to the structure plan renewal? How much has been done, what needs to be done and is there any timeframe for MEPA to finish its work?

The Structure Plan Review process is currently under way. As you probably know, the process is in three phases. Phase 1 involved the preparation of 16 supporting documents on the key land use sectors. The documents analysed the qualitative and quantitative features between 1993 and 2000 and proposed a way forward for each of these sectors. The phase also included consultation with the main stakeholders and the public. Phase 2 includes the preparation of an Issues paper and a Strategic Growth Scenarios paper. The Issues paper is a compendium of the main issues identified in Phase 1. The document also analyses the relationships between different issues which have mutual impacts. The Strategic Growth Scenarios paper is, in my opinion, a very interesting document. In it, planners take up existing trends and patterns in society and translate this into a shape of things to come. This paper analyses a number of different strategic directions which the country can take, and deduces the impact of each of these scenarios. The paper puts forward the preferred scenario and proposes the framework of a land use strategy to support it. Next week our officers will be meeting the public in Malta and in Gozo to widen the net for consultation.

When the public’s comments are analysed, Phase 3 will involve the drafting of policies based on the land use strategy identified in Phase 2 in order to come up with a draft replacement plan. Unless there are unforeseen hitches, the reviewed Structure Plan will be issued for consultation by July 2005. Following the completion of the legislative procedure, the new Structure Plan should be in place not later than July 2006.

It has been said that MEPA is “the favourite whipping boy” of the Maltese. Do you agree with this? Is this an incorrect perception of MEPA’s operations? Is there anything that MEPA can do better?

Absolutely. MEPA’s remit is extensive and heavy and its decisions and enforcement processes touch directly where it hurts most: people’s pockets. These factors are conducive to highlighting faults.

MEPA is the regulator in planning and environment. I remember when we were in the process of formulating the Vision, Mission and Values of MEPA, there was an intense discussion due to the all-encompassing meaning of the word “environment”. You can argue that there is always some effect on the environment, even from buildings with high aesthetic value. There are those who would argue that aesthetic taste varies, and it does. Witness the City Gate debate on the Renzo Piano designs, for example.

So, the remit itself places the Authority in an unenviable situation – definitely not a candidate for the national hero! The Environmental lobby looks at development applications from one angle. The corporations and agencies within the private and public sector have their tight business plans and, I have to say, a lack of good project management that should take into account the time required to obtain required permits. Economic and social considerations come from every direction: families who want to increase the value of their home; the church and local councils who want to upgrade the facilities within their parishes and localities; the developer who buys parcels of land and employs people; the entrepreneur who wants to open or expand his business; the governing class who are accountable to public vote – to name but a few. Over the years, analysis of applications submitted shows that 80 per cent of permits are approved. However, the remaining percentage would be disappointed applicants. Laterally, any objectors to the permits issued have to be counted with the aggrieved.

To complicate matters, some applications do not proceed with the speed they should for various reasons. Some of these can be attributed to instances of lack of efficiency within the Authority, but I can guarantee that, in the vast majority of cases, MEPA would not be to blame. One also has to consider that MEPA is a one-stop-shop, and has to coordinate its processes with a number of government entities. Any default by these external parties during the course of the assessment of applications is usually attributed to MEPA. It does not matter that the delay is due to unanswered letters of consultation, or requests for information from the architect which should have been submitted with the application in the first place. The applicant submits to MEPA, and as far as he is concerned, it is MEPA which is to blame when the decision date gets extended.

But MEPA works, and how! This year alone we have had 20 public events which include seminars and public consultations. This averages out at two to three activities per month for the first seven months of the year. We also endeavour to keep the public informed on what’s going on through other forms of communication, such as press releases and through the upkeep of our website. MEPA always tries to maintain a high level of service by monitoring the press and answering queries in the shortest possible time frames. With the appointment of an audit officer, MEPA has upgraded its efficient complaints office and is now better placed to handle grievances. Can we do better? Of course. I would like to see a MEPA with better customer service, a MEPA that can generate more discussion about issues. Moreover, campaigns and activities need money. MEPA has tried to be proactive in this by seeking financing from outside sources recognising the worth of collective social responsibility. However, with increased commitments stemming out of our EU obligations, this sector has to be beefed up too. To be able to continuously improve we need staff and finances and we have to admit that it is not easy. We have to become more efficient – able to do more with the current complement. We have to eliminate slack where there is slack and beef up the required resources where they are lacking.

One recurrent issue regards enforcement: does MEPA have the necessary resources to carry out all the enforcement that is needed? Could it be that lack of enforcement will lead (or has led) those who broke the law to remain advantaged compared to others?

One major distinction which is often blurred is the one between the issuing of stop and enforcement notices, and direct action operations. These two terms mean different things and are not interchangeable. Regarding the stop and enforcement notices, there are no major problems apart from the usual day-to-day administrative headaches. With regard to direct action, the case is somewhat different. Direct action needs extensive financial resources, and it is impossible to deal with all the cases at one go. As such, we have established a working group to find ways and means of how to generate revenue through the implementation of daily fines on enforcement cases which will feed into our direct action operations. In this way we will be able to sustain our actions through the funds collected and still recover the costs of the direct actions without being unduly concerned with when we will be recovering costs due to lengthy court litigations.

Another issue concerns delays encountered by many in getting their applications approved. Is there any way in which this can be speeded up? It may be true that the delays blamed on MEPA may at times be due to delays from the professional people involved on behalf of the applicant, such as architects. But it is equally true that some delays are due to MEPA’s internal procedures. What are your comments?

Again, a case of the vocal minority. Internal audits show that more than four out of five applications are processed within the specified time-frames. However, as I stated earlier, one should also note that in most cases the major delays are not due to the procedures adopted by MEPA, but due to the one-stop-shop concept. Here MEPA is obliged to consult a myriad of government entities and other organisations such as NCPD, ADT, Enemalta, SCH, CPD, MIP, local councils, etc. Apart from these consultations, during the processing of an application, the case officer usually communicates with the architect and applicant for further information. Apart from this there is the fact that in most cases, applicants phone the case officer to check whether their architect has actually complied with the MEPA requirements. Perhaps this checking over the phone lines will decrease as we plan to upgrade our electronic systems where one may check the status of applications.

Having said all this, we know that there is room for improvement and, in fact, three reviews are being prepared and carried out: one on the Development Control Unit (DCU) operations, one on the Development Planning Application Report (DPAR) and another on the quality of the submissions by architects. This was recently announced by the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment.

Much comment has been made regarding Minister George Pullicino’s recent outburst against the ugliness of certain modern buildings. Does MEPA intend changing its operational parameters to evaluate an application on a much wider context than it does today? For instance, through considering how the proposed application will affect the whole outlook of the street, area, etc?

I think that most would agree with the minister’s words...but not if it affects them. This is the basic problem, really. I think in all honesty, many would agree that architects are not really putting their best foot forward where design is concerned. But look at it from the architect’s side. His client’s brief is usually to get the most out of the parcel of land and at the cheapest possible price. How much room does that allow for manoeuvre? And what happens if the applicant is not happy with the ethics demonstrated by the architect? The architect will risk losing the client to some other firm which will unscrupulously take the application forward with little regard to the things that really matter. As with many other things, it requires a change in culture.

The policies we have are wide enough to leave ample room for creativity by architects. We presently have DC 2000 which is basically an extension of policies BEN 1 and BEN 2 of the Structure Plan. This policy document is being amended and improved following a public consultation exercise and with the specific aim of promoting good design. This is being done so as to improve our urban environment and respecting those characteristics which are worth conserving. On the other hand, this topic has always been a subjective one and depends on how buildings and the urban environment are perceived by the public, architects and planners.

To get back to question No 1: with land in Malta being so scarce, what is MEPA’s opinion regarding high rise buildings and land reclamation?

In principle, MEPA agrees with high rise buildings. The perennial questions are: Where (in terms of location) and How High? These issues are currently being studied by an in-house committee with the scope of coming up with specific policy guidance on high rise buildings.

On the issue of land reclamation, technical studies are to be carried out to identify if this is feasible and, if so, in which locations should land reclamation be carried out. As I said before, foreign consultants have been engaged to spearhead these studies.