|
Over the past few days a number of favourable comments have been made in the local press with regard to the reports issued by MEPA auditor Joseph Falzon. MEPA officials have, not unexpectedly, commented in a manner as to defend their decisions. MEPA officials have every right to comment freely on the report, even comment negatively.
I feel however, that it is about time that MEPA address the matters raised in the referred reports. The accent in the reports was mainly the inconsistencies from one decision to the next. MEPA officials must at all times keep in mind that their sole purpose is to serve the public, not themselves or their taskmasters but solely Mr Joe Public.
My first comment is with regard to the attitude which so very often surfaces with regard to MEPA. Many applicants and architect friends of mine have complained about the manner in which applications seemed to be sifted initially with a sharp eye with the sole intention of trying to find something wrong. In this sense it is high time that MEPA puts the public service squarely on its agenda. When MEPA was created it was made abundantly clear that all matters relating to MEPA were now in the hands of an independent body. We all know that the MEPA that was intended to be, does not exist. Very often we get the feeling that MEPA seems to be there to service itself rather than the applicant!
Beyond this general situation, there are two factors in determining applications which continue to puzzle applicants. In the first place there exists the depressing tendency that some MEPA Boards have to inform applicants of their appointment before the Board with a mere two or three days notice. It is high time that appointments be given with at least three weeks notice – even more if required. If the applicant and his architect are well informed beforehand of the date, then they can attend after having prepared themselves accordingly. This would facilitate matters and allow the Board to act swiftly and conclusively. I lose count of the number of applicants that could not be assisted by counsel due to the short notice of the appointment. This is unacceptable.
The second factor which must be addressed is with regard to the comments and objections raised by the Directorate during the course of the application. When an application is processed it must be made clear from the outset by the Directorate whether there are any problems, and if so, where the problems in the application lie. We must keep in mind that the independent role of the Directorate here is crucial. It is up to the Directorate to inform the deciding Board of the planning policies which affect the application. This must be done at the outset strictly and fairly. It is wrong for the Directorate to indicate at one sitting that there is one problem and then bring up another problem at the next sitting. I have assisted in applications that have been put forward from date to date in this way for years.
In reality there exists the necessity for the planning process to be procedurally laid out at the moment of application. The time frame for the decision making process has to be indicated right from the outset and the Directorate is to make sure that matters are dealt with promptly, effectively and correctly. When the fault is the applicant’s he can have no reason to complain. However, when the application is left undecided due to procrastination or lack of direction on the part of the Directorate, the applicant should not suffer.
It is wrong for MEPA to let matters lie undecided for months and then, when it seems that at last a decision is to be taken, bring up some new matter to be discussed. I stress, this is not a one of situation but is practically the norm and is, in my opinion, shabby treatment which negatives all the money spent by MEPA in PR to improve its image.
It is high time that the procedural and logistical approach be re-appraised to make the applicant the fulcrum of the application.
Simon Micallef Stafrace
Valletta
|
