|
The only positive thing about the proposed extension of the development zones in Malta is that we should know where we stand. The government always used MEPA as a political tool especially before the general elections: we all remember the mass production of building permits that were issued until the very last day before the general elections of 2003, many of which are still pending in appeal up to this very day. This time, the government taught of going about the same routine in a more transparent manner: by publishing proposed new areas for development.
Needless to say, the matter has been tackled very artificially and it is surprising how none of the environmental groups and the tourism sector have not called for an impact assessment of these new development zones to see what impact, if at all, they have on our state of the environment and of the tourism industry. The MTA spent more than a million liri on establishing a brand for product Malta when it could have easily put the photo of a crane and wrote beside it ‘product Malta’. MEPA, on the other hand, boasts of being an authority for development and for the environment, when in actual fact, the bulk of the resources are spent on development and little if at all on the environment.
Suffice it to say that MEPA is still without a director for the environment, and never has it been without a director for development. In the Pender Place application, we have learnt that the MEPA board, the highest authority within MEPA, has authorised excavations to start, when the obligatory environmental impact assessment had not been ready. This is a typical case of how to flout MEPA’s laws. We have a MEPA that obliges us to present an environmental impact assessment before it can discuss certain applications and at the same time we have a MEPA that authorizes excavations when this rule has not been complied with. Obviously, thanks to MEPA board member Dr Joe Brincat we now know that MEPA is interpreting excavations not to be part of development. So if you are waiting for a permit at MEPA and you start excavations and they try to stop you, quote the case of Pender Place and seek permission to start excavations, (a permit they have to give you as of right now), and start your project.
Establishing development zones is a joke: they are just guidelines and nothing more. It is sickening to read that such zones are approved by Parliament when they are actually a piece of paper wherein the terminology used is discretionary and not prohibitory, thus giving plenty of leeway to MEPA to extend their interpretation in the most ample manner. Take for example, the MIDI project in Tigné. The structure plan stated that no development was to be permitted at Tigné point. But somebody had the bright idea that the project is not at Tigné point, and sold it very quickly to the MEPA board. The result is obvious: the ruining of the skyline and an eyesore from Marsamxetto harbour. But that is called progress!
Mind you, I do not blame the developers for flouting MEPA because after all, they are only giving MEPA a taste of its own medicine. MEPA has a queer way of flouting the law itself: it is bound by law but as the same time it has a habit of issuing policies and circulars which flout the law and sometimes even its own policies. There are many ways how the law can be surpassed and the developers know them, thanks to MEPA, of course. Here are some examples.
If you have a farmhouse in an outside development zone and you want to build another floor, do not worry. Make a false declaration that you are the owner and that it is your residence, and apply for a washroom. Set your mind at rest because MEPA does not check whether you are actually the owner and that you actually reside in that farmhouse. For MEPA to check it must receive a complaint, otherwise you are free to declare whatever you want. Of course, you might say that the law regulating MEPA, Chapter 356 of the laws of Malta, does not allow false declarations.
Yes this is true, but rest assured, that MEPA will not take action and it leaves it to the third parties to go through the ordeal of court and lawyer’s expenses and time because it sits on the pretext that the permit is issued ‘without prejudice to third party rights’. And if you are worried that they might come and check if you are using the room as a washroom, do not worry and set your mind at rest because they do no follow up at all.
You build a house and you cannot apply for water and electricity because the compliance certificate cannot be issued since your house is not according to MEPA permit? Relax and stay cool: tell you architect to apply PA circular 1/97 and convince MEPA that part of the house is according to permit, so that a compliance certificate can be issued on part of the house and you can apply for water and electricity. For your info, PA 1/97 speaks of apartments and it relates to the issue of compliance certificates to those apartments in the same block which are according to permit, although the whole building may not be according to plan. But imagination is ripe at MEPA, and the more imaginative you are, the better.
And do not worry if you excavate less than the legal distance established by law and you kill the neighbour, either. MEPA does not consider legal distance as a requirement in your application and it approves your permit, always, of course, ‘subject to third party rights’. This condition is applied at rampant by MEPA and it cannot be said to apply for excavations carried out in the party wall. This is not a question of a third party right but a question of submitting a false declaration because if you are excavating, you have to delete 76cm from the party wall. So MEPA, stop taking us for a ride and thank God that nobody had the guts, so far, to take you to the criminal court.
God forbid that any member of my family will meet the same faith of those in St Paul’s Bay or those in Cathedral Street, Sliema as I will go through hell to make sure that the members of that board who gave that permit without the specific obligation not to excavate less than the 76cm allowed by law are also brought before the criminal court.
This is not involuntary homicide at all: involuntary homicide my foot! There is involuntariness only when something could not have been foreseen. In these cases, any professional architect can foresee the damages that certain excavations can cause to the neighbouring tenements and to the neighbours themselves. But why should anyone including the architects worry: if you or your architect is accused of involuntary homicide, your architect may even end up chairing one of the Development Control Commission’s board. So excavate as much as you want, and if something happens, just play it by ear.
And if you are worried that your project is in a villa site and you do not have the minimum cartilage, do not worry either. Submit a false plan with a false area with MEPA: they will not come and check the area unless somebody makes a complaint, and even if they do, and your permit is issued, nobody is going to retrieve that permit. And if your site is in a corner site, you are at a bigger advantage because you may find that there are rules in one street and not in the other, and place your front door in the street with the more advantageous rules. After all, at MEPA rules change to regularise the irregularities and not to enforce them.
And another word of advice: appoint an architect from those in the MEPA boards because like that your application may be discussed by the same board in which your architect is a member. All in that case when the time comes for your application, all that your architect has to do is to literally jump from the seat of a board member to the seat of the applicant’s architect, and it will be discussed and decided by the same board.
MEPA is now 14 years old and what started as a development control agency is now an uncontrollable development agency which took environment under its wings so that now it has total control, and there is no environmental government agency that can watch over it.
The problem is not with developers: the problem is with MEPA!
|
