From Ms A. Vella

I feel I must reply to your editorial “For the reform of Mepa” of last Sunday, which focused on development issues.

In case the wrong impression was given, I would like to point out that as far as I know, no environment NGO “argues against any and all development”, certainly not the one I represent, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar. Nor has any NGO ever called for a moratorium on building activity, but simply a stop to so-called “development” projects that are highly inappropriate, abusive or unsustainable.

You similarly asked “would it not be agreeable to have derelict farmhouses renovated and inhabited, as long as they are not turned into swanky villas with pools et al?” The crux of the matter is that only a percentage of Outside Development Zone (ODZ) applications are for the renovation of derelict farmhouses. Of the 250 ODZ applications submitted in December while Mepa was shut down, limiting the public’s powers to object, a large percentage of the applications were to sanction illegally built structures, while others were for highly unsuitable buildings like blocks of flats in the countryside. Even farming applications are not above suspicion, as we have already raised the issue of applications to build a water reservoir with a pump room, which were promptly converted into “swanky villas”!

As regards the recent changes that have increased accessibility to planning information, I must add that while we have established the public’s right to view plans and read Case Officer reports as well as Heritage Advisory Committee reports at Mepa without the need to be accompanied by an architect, rights that were previously being denied to the public, the recent amendments have improved matters for NGOs but added no further accessibility to the general public.

As for what you rightly point out as “the right of the community as a whole not to have over-development imposed on it and in such concentration?” this is indeed a right abroad, where in both Europe and the US the first criteria in assessing a project, especially a major project, are density of population and percentage of built-up land in a given area. Unfortunately, Mepa, in its infinite wisdom, adamantly refuses to judge development applications in the light of density of population, in spite of the fact that the Local Plans have indicated this necessity. The results of such a shortsighted approach can be seen in the urban canyons that are depriving residents of light and air while car emissions from traffic jams rob us of our health.

It pains me to have to point to Mepa every time, as I know how many hard-working and well-intentioned officials work there. But sadly, Mepa’s decision-makers have a lot to answer for, as no amount of resignations can ever compensate us for the loss of our quality of life.

Astrid Vella

Coordinator

Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar