As a private person who inherited a rural property in Gozo, which was partly in ruins, and, after many attempts, managed to obtain a building permit in 2007 to rehabilitate the property and its adjoining land. It is a pity how after one struggles to rehabilitate derelict dwellings and improve the countryside one is faced with a refusal by Mepa on the grounds that the rubble wall is not of standard height. An appeal to sanction the construction of a small pool (within 50 square metres) and landscaping was rejected after three years of an unforgettable gruelling experience. Can Mepa ever reform itself and treat the ordinary citizen with respect and dignity? Can anyone ever understand how this public agency, which now runs at a loss of close to €21 million (this after hiking up its tariffs two years ago) and employs an army of professionals, can ever be tamed to render a decent service to an ordinary person.

Forget the property magnates who have run riot with their rich pickings; Mepa has a long history of protecting the developers such as MIDI, which constructed a succession of ugly flats in Sliema, ruining the vista from Valletta of the Tigné promontory. Developers were quick to advertise that such a collection of box-like structures had all been sold and built two other massive seafront towers that are now offered for sale. In other instances Mepa allowed the destruction of the Kalkara Valley, uprooting protected mature carob trees and removing an organic farm; allowed a property baron to build the Riviera Hotel illegally and supplied the ex-PN president with a permit to construct a villa in the ecologically sensitive Bahrija valley. Add to this, the massive development of huge chunks of sensitive areas near Wied Ghasel and Santa Maria Estate, culminating with the resignation of the entire Mepa board when it was discovered that its head was acting as an architect for a prominent developer.

To continue with the litany of dubious permits, one cannot forget the protestations of the auditor of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) when he concluded his investigation into the reconstruction of a farmhouse in Bahrija mentioned earlier. At the time, the board discussed applying what is known as Article 39A and finally did revoke the original permit. The applicant resigned his party post after he was granted a Mepa permit to build in a very ecologically sensitive valley in Wied tal-Marca, Bahrija. One cannot forget how the Mepa auditor investigated the case and found a lot of irregularities on how the permit was granted. As stated earlier, on reapplication the Bahrija permit was finally issued.

In another case, a permit for an extension to a beauty salon in Attard was withdrawn after it was found that somehow, through Mepa’s fault, the original application had not been published in the papers nor had a site notice been affixed. In another unusual case, a permit for internal and external alteration work, including the construction of a basement and a swimming pool in an archaeological site was approved upon application by a former ADT chairperson, to carry out work in the Xaghra tal-Ghattuqa area, close to Rabat. In yet another instance, Mepa had established that work could take place in an area marked as an archaeological site, which include cart ruts and caves, dating back hundreds of years even though the DCC board decided in favour of this application PA02225/07. The DCC board justified its decision by stating that the ongoing work must be monitored, while also submitting a report on the historical heritage of the area.

It is curious to recall that attempts to sugar the pill have been made by politicians prior to each general election. Going down memory lane, we recall how last January then Opposition leader Joseph Muscat stated that anybody who has tried to obtain a planning permission, whether to extend their home or business, knows the frustration of dealing with Mepa. What they may not be aware of however, is the sheer cost. The truth came out when the penny dropped and the incumbent government solemnly declared that Mepa has debts of €21 million. Is this the result of unbridled bureaucracy, gold plating of directives, gross inefficiencies or incompetence, which together with an expensive team of top officials are dearly costing every family on the islands? Your guess is as good as mine.

There is a feeling of déjà vu when politicians remind us of their plans to reform the behemoth, streamline its draconian decision-making procedures, trim its massive bureaucratic tentacles and improve efficiency. Many articles were penned before the last general election campaign by all sides of the political spectrum that, once elected, they would empower Mepa professionals and workers by freeing them from red tape, and giving them more responsibility and new powers. What a farce. After the election the Authority said “owners of residences that have an existing minor irregularity and which is not creating a disturbance to neighbours can apply to be granted a partial compliance”. I waited for three long years, assisted by a capable defence lawyer and having complied with all demands from the case officer, even demolished parts of the dwelling to meet objections and paid an experienced architect to provide professional plans, planted a fully landscaped front and back area with approved indigenous plants and trees. All this helped, yet the Tribunal considered that the soil levels and the height of the rubble wall was a problem.

Moving on the criticism about this Medusa with so many serpents nestling in her head and with hindsight we concur with Prime Minister Dr Muscat. He was not off the mark when he complained about the cost of running the Authority. Under the previous administration, officials of nine boards of Mepa earned €880,000 in salaries between them, while seven officials receive €470,000 in annual salaries.

The cherry on the cake is that, in addition, all board members receive payments that vary according to the position they occupy. The chairman had a salary of €94,000 (now much reduced), while the six other Mepa officers receive a salary of more than €30,000 each plus a performance bonus of 15 per cent. One may be curious to know how the Authority has landed itself with so much debt when its charges are not cheap and, as in my case, the cost of two appeals were quite painful and it took me years of waiting while the property itself returns to ruins.

Do you remember the 9th March general election campaign when all parties were talking in earnest to their faithful promising reforms and sweeteners to those who like me were suffering and could not afford political patronage like some of the teserati or blue-eyed cronies.

Yes, it was in the fourth week of the election campaign, that Mepa announced that it would be giving concessions for residences with minor irregularities and grant them a partial compliance certificate. Of course this was all eye wash, as the measures were only cosmetic and as my experience has shown me the true grit when pages upon pages of legalese language are written into the dictum of the refusal document .I suspect as a layman that this language is an attempt to mask the true reason for the refusal of legitimate appeals, which as in my case and others are refused due to minor irregularities such as rubble walls built with cement mortar. Drive anywhere in the countryside and check whether Mepa-approved rubble walls are all built exactly to the prescribed height or scrupulously omit to use cement mortar on top of loose rubble walls; builders tell you this cement protects it from collapsing.

It is a paradox to consider how my alterations to a pre 1967 property in the countryside which is covered with a valid permit has not been sanctioned as far as it breached the legal notice of the height of the boundary wall (when this was patently proven otherwise by an independent survey of the site duly presented to Mepa). Yet last month Mepa announced a public consultation process to amend its policies on outside development zones (ODZ), to facilitate the redevelopment of existing farm buildings into agro-tourism establishments or visitor attractions. A new policy being drafted by Mepa is also aimed at allowing the redevelopment or rehabilitation of pre-1967 farm buildings while “eliminating visual intrusions in the rural scene”.

Let us pray that this government will succeed in taming the behemoth and divide it into two sections – one protecting the environment and the other as a planning protectorate. Hopefully, it will slowly but surely return to its original purpose – ie, of defending the local biodiversity in the diminishing countryside and to succeed in balancing the scales in favour of sustainable development.