Driving the reform home | Austin Walker

Almost three years after his appointment, Austin Walker does not regret accepting the well paid but burdensome post as MEPA chairman.

But he admits that he never imagined that this task would be “so voluminous and complicated and would require so much time.”

Aside from having to keep the ship afloat on a day basis, he had the added task of spearheading a reform which took more than two years to materialise.  

Walker acknowledges that he had no idea about MEPA’s structure and policies before he was appointed the Authority’s chairman. 

“I had no clue on whether there were two, or six Development Control Commission  boards at MEPA.”

Was a lack of knowledge about planning a disadvantage?

“It was a disadvantage in the sense that I had to learn the long way. But the fact that I was not part of this system helped me to look at things from a fresh perspective… I was not willing to take anything for granted or to accept things simply because everyone was used to them…”

Walker’s term in office expires next June. Will he accept a renewal of his term?

Although he thinks that “three years in this demanding position is a long time,” he does not seem to have much choice in accepting an extension.

Walker’s original plan was to serve one three-year term, dedicating the last year in office to assess the results of the previous two. 

But since the MEPA reform process was only completed in January, there is not enough time left for him to do this assessment.

“Six months are too short a time to assess whether the reform has worked and whether it needs fine tuning, as I’m sure will be the case.”

So it would be safe to assume that he will be accepting a reappointment.

“Therefore against my wishes, I think I will be subjected to  pressure to accept an extension of my term in office after June… but given the choice, I would run so fast that nobody will be able to catch me, come 15 June.”

This is not because he is unhappy with his job.

“It is because the load is so heavy.”

He describes his normal working day as one starting at 8:30am and finishing some time between 7:30pm and at  8:30pm.

Walker has described himself  as an “expensive car” when justifying his€ 93,000 annual salary. What did he mean?

Walker believes in the principle that if one pays peanuts one gets monkeys.

“If one wants someone of a certain standard one has to pay them a salary which matches that standard.”

This is more so for people like him who left the private sector to take a public sector job.

“I was employed with Mizzi’s organisation for 30 years. The salary I received there was higher than the one I have now. This counts for other persons who previously worked in the private sector.”

The chairpersons of the newly appointed Environmental Planning Commissions will earn an annual salary of €54,043. The other board members will receive €47,456 a year each. These salaries will cost MEPA a staggering €440,278 a year.

For Walker, this was a direct consequence of the decision to substitute the part time Development Control Commission with two full time boards.

Part time boards would have cost less but would not have taken care of the conflict of interest problem.

“I am not saying that DCC members always had a conflict of interest. But the perception that they had these conflicts was widespread. To eliminate this perception we needed persons who fully dedicated themselves for this work. In order to find people of a certain standard to fulfil this role one had to pay for it. Let’s not forget that law courts pay similar salaries to magistrates and judges.”

But was it not ironic that MEPA raised its tariffs significantly at the very moment that it was increasing its expense on salaries, while fees paid by developers for an average sized apartment will increase by 54%, and the planning fees for an average sized villa and penthouse will rise by 90% and 177% respectively?

While presently the development of an average sized penthouse costs €1805, under the new tariff system this will cost a staggering €4991 – an increase of 177%.

Walker explains that the hike in tariffs had been in the offing since January 2009 following  the government’s decision to stop subsidising MEPA, announced as part of the 2008 Budget.

“To eliminate the €6 million paid by the tax payer to finance MEPA, we had no choice but to increase the tariffs.”

But the exercise to find the right formula for the tariffs took two years to complete. It was based on a study of costs covering 21 months between January 2008 till the end of September 2009.

The tariffs reflect both MEPA’s recurrent expenditure, 75% of which consists of salaries and the new costs entailed by MEPA reform.

MEPA also set different tariffs for different applications, because not all applications require the same time and resources. MEPA has also established the number of applications which the system can handle at a time.

While accepting the principle that applicants should pay the price of the application process, the Malta Developers Association has insisted that developers should not be expected to pay for MEPA’s  environmental functions (such as, for example, air monitoring). It also called on MEPA to give a clear account of how much each application costs.

But Walker insists that “it is humanly impossible” to time an application and calculate how much it costs.

He also acknowledges that tariffs paid by developers will be subsidising the Authority’s other functions and not just that of funding the processing of applications.

“The model on which MEPA’s fees were established was based on global expenditure of MEPA, including its central, environmental and planning aspects”.

It also takes in to account the cost of strengthening MEPA’s enforcement arm.

“We should not forget that MEPA’s enforcement costs will also increase with the appointment a new Directorate. This was also factored in the new tariffs.”

Contrary to what happened in the past,  MEPA boards are becoming stricter when it comes to the sanctioning of illegal developments or approving ODZ developments, to the extent that in cases like that of the sanctioning of boathouses at Dwejra in Gozo and proposed bungalows in Sant Maria Estate, MEPA overturned the recommendations of the case officer.

Walker attributes this new trend to the change in government’s policy.

“Immediately after being re-elected, the Prime Minister made it clear that ODZ should always be ODZ and that any development in ODZ areas should be restricted and that whatever can take place in urban areas should not take place in rural areas.”

But for him, its is not a question of simply abiding to policy.

“MEPA should agree with the policy because I sincerely believe that it is a mistake to approve development in the countryside which can take place in urban areas. I think the people in general agree with this principle.”

“Consistency in decision making” is another  popular expectation which Walker is striving to satisfy.

But this does not mean that what was wrongly approved in the past will be allowed to set a precedent for doing the same today.

“The message consistently being given by MEPA is that applications which in the past would have been approved due slackness will not be approved now.”

According to the MEPA chairman, one important cultural change which is happening at MEPA is the shift in the way decisions are taken. Now, they must always to be taken on the merits of policies, rather than accommodating the deeply ingrained “ejja ha nirrangaw” (lets sort it out) culture.

The MEPA reform sets a timeframe for the approval of development permits within development zones which have to be approved in 12 weeks following a four-week screening programme. On the other hand, complex applications will be approved in 26 weeks.

“MEPA is tied by these deadlines. From the moment the applicant pays the fees, we will be faced with a linear calendar in which every day which passes is part of the 12 or 26 weeks needed to process the application.”

But according to Walker, this could not be achieved without an improvement in the quality of applications presented by architects.

 “The great majority of applications handed in the past had a lot of shortcomings, not  just as regards the information required by law to be submitted in an application but also as regards the quality of the documentation submitted”. 

For example, MEPA required photographs of the existing site of the development.  Walker claims that there were cases in which photographs of these sites were submitted but these had their façade covered by cars or trucks parked in front of them.

This problem is being addressed through the introduction of a four-week screening process.

But if an application is presented correctly, it will be processed  before the four weeks expire. 

“We had only set the four weeks deadline because there was suspicion that we were going to shorten the time needed to process an application by prolonging the screening process.”

Some delays were the result of government entities failing to submit their feedback in time. Now these entities will have to wait 30 more days to do so.  Moreover, officials from Enemalta and Kunsill Nazzjonali Persuni b’Dizabilita (KNDP), whose feedback often requires a change in plans which inevitably results in the lengthening of the process, will be posted in MEPA and will submit their feedback in seven days.

In a previous interview, Walker had expressed reservations on whether MEPA should have the final say on projects proposed by the government. 

He compares MEPA’s position in these cases to the position MEPA finds itself when “rarely” ruling out the advice given by the KNDP or the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

“This is because MEPA has a vision and responsibility which goes beyond the more limited scope of these entities. In these cases, MEPA has to shoulder its responsibility. In its relation to government, MEPA is in the same position of these entities. Government has more responsibility than MEPA.” 

So if a conflict between MEPA and government arises who should have the final say?

“I think that with regards to national projects (especially those related to national security or the national interest) a decision should be taken by parliament or by a select committee in parliament”. 

He points out that these can still seek MEPA’s technical advice to ensure that these adhere to MEPA policies. “But MEPA should not have the final say.”

Moreover, the interlay between politics and planning is an ongoing process with many changes to policies and local plans being instigated by government and not MEPA. 

“A case in point were changes being made in the Ta’ Qali Action Plan (which would make the Ta’ Qali tent permanent) and changes on local plan policies for Marsa (which foresee an extension of the golf course).”

A plan which aims at rebuilding the Armier shanty town through the construction of 1500 new beach rooms has been pending since 2002. Subsequently, the government made electoral commitments to the Armier boat house owners promising to hand over 230 tumuli of public land in Armier to Armier Developments Ltd for a 65-year lease against an annual Lm157,000 (€350,000) payment. It also promised not to take any enforcement action against the illegal boathouses build after 1992.

Walker makes it clear that any decision on Armier will be “political decision.”

One cannot ignore the fact that “election after election commitments were made to the entities in Armier that their position will be revised.”

But MEPA will have its hands tied until it is given “a clear and precise direction” on where development can actually take place and which height limitations will apply.

But who will be writing the policy?

“Policies are written by MEPA employees but these have to be approved by the government. In the case of Armier, the policy has existed for eight years, and this has to be revised.  But this revision has to be accompanied by a political direction. The process cannot be completed by MEPA.”

According to Walker, MEPA’s task in this case should be that of providing the documentation to the political decision makers.

In view of the nature of the issue, Walker thinks the Armier plan should also be discussed by parliament’s standing committee on planning.  And if no consensus is found, it could end up being discussed by the plenary.

Another policy being revised regards penthouses.

MEPA has completed the revision of the DC Policy and Guideline of 2007, which sets policies on penthouses and semi-basements which has been sent to government for its approval. Subsequently, this new policy will be issued for public consultation.

One of the problems addressed by the new policy is the obstruction posed by penthouses to access to solar energy on rooftops. But the new policy will not be retroactive, only limiting the development of penthouses in the future.

At present, MEPA finds itself approving projects on which the government has already awarded multi-million euro tenders.  How can one expect MEPA not to feel pressured from approving these applications?

“The fact that the government has already awarded the tender or has already bought the equipment does not in any way restrict me… if some expect me to be a rubber stamp, I will relinquish my post immediately because I refuse to be a rubberstamp of any government”.

One such case was the approval of the Delimara power station extension last May,  after the government had already granted a tender to BWSC and opted for the use of  heavy fuel oil. When approving the power station extension, MEPA did not take a decision on the choice of fuel, as this  decision will be part of an Integrated Pollution Control permit issued at a later stage. It simply gave its approval for the construction of the power station.

Would it not have made more sense to issue and discuss the two permits on the same day to ensure that one decision does not prejudice the other?

Walker recalls raising this point himself during the public hearing.

“We were given technical advice that any decision taken would not prejudice the choice of fuel in the future, as the equipment being approved could be used both for the generation of energy by diesel or heavy fuel oil.”