Fifteen long years ago, the government decided to set up the first Planning Authority, to separate planning issues from politics, and ensure that qualified personnel, under the aegis of a competent regulatory authority, deal with such issues impartially.
In 2002, the introduction of the Environment Protection Act marked the reincarnation of the Authority under a new name – namely the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA). It was assigned the added role of national regulator in matters relating to the environment.
The idea was commendable. The outcome has proved to be disappointing. With hindsight, it looks as if MEPA is proving to be a liability much more than an asset.
It has grown into an obese monster, with a complement of over 400 multi-disciplinary personnel. It has assumed additional responsibilities in the process - many of them arising from Malta’s accession to the European Union – including that of national mapping agency,
It was disclosed, only the other week, that a radical restructuring of MEPA’s Environment Protection Directorate is underway “in order to allow the directorate to better deal with a number of issues that have proved to be difficult to address under the current set up”.
Ire of civil society
MEPA is beginning to look like a monster at large, sometimes trampling over citizens’ sensitivities and, ignoring on various occasions, the principle of public consultation.
Its unedifying performance has provoked the ire of civil society, whose reaction ranged from consternation to street protests. It has been repeatedly accused of being strong with the weak and weak with the strong.
The charge that MEPA has demonstrated a pre-disposition in favour of the construction industry is repeated in the media with monotonous frequency. Worse still, MEPA’s high-handedness has been the subject of repeated strictures by its very own Auditor.
MEPA’s supposed independent status does not mean that it is accountable to no one; much less that it is above the law.
Yet, we have witnessed media reports quoting from an internal report by the MEPA Auditor, wherein it was stated that procedures adopted by MEPA to approve local plans lacked transparency and might give rise to abuse. The Auditor has been quoted textually with the opinion that “the potential for abuse in accepting the procedures, as adopted by MEPA, is enormous.
This clearly conflicts with both the letter and the spirit of the Development Planning Act”.
Public consultation rights
In that specific instance, the Auditor opined that legal provisions should be introduced to ensure consultation at all stages of the preparation and amendment of a local plan. This particular incident was related to a change in policy that led to the “re-zoning” of part of the exclusive Santa Maria Estate at Mellieha.
The MEPA watchdog suggested that a legal notice be issued “to specify clearly the duties of MEPA relative to public consultation”. He insisted, pointedly, that “ public participation in land-use planning was crucial to the democratisation of the planning process”, adding that adopting procedures which limit or curtail this right is unacceptable.
The Santa Maria episode is only one instance where MEPA found itself under fire from outraged citizen interests.
The extension of the development zone last year, in the face of widespread opposition, and the furore arising from decisions relating to Ta’ Cenc and Ramla l-Hamra in Gozo, and the proposal for a golf course at Xaghra l-Hamra in Malta, have been, only recently, portrayed by the media as epitomising “an authority out of touch with public opinion and beholden to political imperatives”.
The egregious way MEPA blundered into an ambush over the Xemxija land slide, and various issues relating to the flagrant uglification of Sliema and St Julian’s, have since been the subject of public outcries and intense media interest.
In this unfolding situation, it is futile to argue with MEPA on a level playing field. The monster has been on a rampage and seemed to have liked it as it is.
It is not the government, but Parliament, that should take an urgent view of the matter, and intervene to safeguard citizens’ rights.
A suggestion has been made for a commission of inquiry to re-examine MEPA’s structure and its decision-making process. It is a sensible proposal – provided, of course, that the proposed commission would consist of people with the necessary know-how, and who have no personal interest in the construction industry or in the property business.
[email protected]