Mepa is perhaps the most unpopular authority on the island. Constantly in the spotlight, Mepa has come under fire on countless occasions. It is usually termed as a monster, one that takes rash decisions. And sometimes, let’s face it, it does. But this was one of the main reasons the prime minister decided to take this authority under his helm. We were promised a reform – and it was delivered.
It is true that it took 14 months to craft, during which there were the usual sighs that nothing was being done. But it was important to have everyone on board. Time is necessary if we are to listen, and listen carefully to all the stakeholders. NGOs, experts, Mepa employees and not least civil society, all had their say and gave their input to influence this reform positively. This gave a clear and more realistic picture of what drastic measures, or other, have to be taken.
This was an important step which, we all agree, was much needed. This is a step that should reinstate the authority in a dignified way to what it really deserves to be, or what the country deserves it to be. The constant complaints of permits that frequently took longer to be issued than the building of the actual house, lengthy procedures for minor amendments and so on were nibbling relentlessly away at the public’s trust in Mepa. As those usual dissenting voices kept huffing that nothing was being done, the reform was officially launched.
The prime minister told us that he wanted an authority that could represent you and I better, that could listen better and that can finally act better. For this to materialise, it was rightly decided that the four main pillars should be consistency, efficiency, enforcement and accountability.
Civil society will be represented better in the core aspects of decision making by having a representative from civil society or NGO and a cultural expert appointed to the board of Mepa. Bodies such as the Development Control Commission will now be composed of full timers, as opposed to part timers, which may have constituted a conflict of interest in the past. Three full time members will also be employed serving in the new Planning and Review Tribunal which will have the enforcement power to stop development if appeals are made by third parties concerning UCA, ODZ, SAC areas or scheduled properties.
In my personal opinion, having a deadline of twelve weeks for regular applications within development boundaries which conform to policy, which are by far the most common, is indeed a marked response. Mepa will become more efficient, primarily because fixed deadlines for decisions will be issued. This will be the end of months, if not years, of anticipation for an investment or a mere regular alteration. Something one of my constituents pointed out was that there is the need for better customer care, and this is being addressed by giving it a good shake up and bolstering it so that it truly place clients first.
Things like the fixing of site notices and its maintenance will now become the responsibility of the applicant, as is sending a registered letter to all residents that may be affected by the application. The notion that applicants will become more involved in their own applications is commendable. The new proposal also ensures that we will have extended and superior structures in place, analyses and checks and balances.
It is being made sure that Mepa’s resources are being bolstered to the necessary standards that will allow it to carry out indispensable enforcements, steered by the Enforcement Directorate. As we have even started experiencing recently, Mepa’s enforcement has taken stands that reassure us it is a serious authority, whether it concerns returning public land or for other reasons. It is great that this is going to be further strengthened, as unfortunately, with the stubborn few, it is the only way forward.
On one hand, we have an opposition leader that criticises, says our prime minister is not courageous, without ever providing a reasonable solution. On the other, we have a prime minister who is making the necessary reforms for the good of the country even if they are not always that popular. This is a big step forward, an assertive move clearly in line with the prime minister’s promises. When analysing all the proposals acting together, it is evident that the overarching factor that emerges is that this reform was based on listening – and listening carefully, to everyone involved. The prime minister had the courage to take this authority under his helm, with its good and its bad, to give it a new direction, a direction of good planning that will eventually leave its mark not only in our social but also in our economic well being.
David Casa is a Nationalist MEP
[email protected]