Sixteen long years have passed since the Government decided to set up the first Planning Authority to insulate planning issues from politics and to ensure that such issues are dealt with impartially by qualified people, under the aegis of a competent and independent regulatory authority.
The introduction of the Environment Protect Act in 2002 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 a disappointment. With hindsight, Mepa has emerged as more of a liability than an asset.
It has grown into a cumbersome monster, with a complement of more than 400 multi-disciplinary personnel, and Malta’s accession to the European Union loaded it with new burdens.
Various attempts have been made to restructure the outfit but Mepa has never managed to find its way out of the wood.
Many a time it has been accused of trampling over citizens’ sensitivities, and of ignoring, on various occasions, the principle of public consultation. Its unedifying performance has repeatedly provoked the ire of civil society, whose reaction has ranged from consternation to street protests. It has often been accused of being strong with the weak and weak with the strong and the charge that it has demonstrated a predisposition to favour the construction industry has been repeated with monotonous regularity in the media. Its high-handedness has been the subject of many a stricture by its own auditor.
We have seen media reports, quoting from an internal document signed by the Mepa auditor, where it was pointed out that procedures adopted by the Authority to approve local plans lacked transparency and may 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.“
It is this sort of high-handed stance that has exposed Mepa to the gunfire of outraged citizen interests.
Mepa’s role in the highly controversial Mistra case has highlighted the opacity in which its Development Control Commissions (DCCs) operate.
Some of Mepa’s decisions relating to many a location outside the development zone have added fuel to the flames.
It took Prime Minister Gonzi a long time to be seized of the situation – but, to his credit, he decided, however belatedly, to take the bull by the horns and assumed direct responsibility for Mepa after the last general election.
His first move was to appoint a new board. But, from day one, the new executive chairman is alleged to have stopped advertising in Maltatoday after being criticised by that newspaper. If true, this story does not suggest that the outlook of some of the new top people at Mepa is any less arrogant than before.
The performance of the chairman and the new board over the Fort Cambridge development project has compounded the issue. It has provided proof positive that nothing has changed and that more of the same is yet in store.
In this unfolding situation, the Mepa monster is still on the rampage and, in the interests of all, it has to be restrained.
It is not the government, but parliament, that should take an urgent view of the matter and intervene to safeguard citizens’ rights.
The most sensible way to deal with the Mepa problem is to institute a Commission of Inquiry to examine the Authority’s structure and decision-making process and make sure that the Commission members are people with the necessary know-how but without a personal interest in the construction or property business.
This suggestion was floated long ago. Public reaction, as reflected in the media – this newspaper included – was favourable. Not so the reaction of Government, which persisted in doing its own thing – practically amounting to letting sleeping dogs lie. Why?
Those who are older and wiser know the answer.
[email protected]