MEPA auditor: new tariffs make MEPA dependent on developers

According to Falzon the government’s decision to stop its subvention to the MEPA means that MEPA has to rely on development fees for its income.

MEPA has raised its tariffs considerably to make up for the shortfall in income from government.

In part Falzon justifies this decision on grounds that since “biggest impact on the environment is created by the developers, they should be expected to face the costs of taking remedial action to offset the impact of their interventions.

But Falzon contends that this also means that MEPA has to rely solely on the payments of developers for its income “with the result that it may favour developers at the expense of the environment”.

Falzon insists that MEPA’s mission is to improve the quality of life of all the people and not to provide a service for developers who would rather do without it.

“The general public is an interested and affected party in all planning decisions, and not just the developers.

Falzon made these observations in MEPA’s latest annual report, which includes reports by all its officials including Falzon.

In what is probably his final report-due to the fact that his term has expired- Falzon does not refrain from criticising the Authority describing it as “a definitely unique institution in the world.”

What makes MEPA unique according to Falzon that as far as it concerned, “its officers and appointees are beyond reproach, may not commit mistakes and never abuse their authority.”

But the Auditor praises the MEPA reform process noting that “there are less inconsistencies in decisions and more rapid processing of applications”.

In fact he attributes the considerable decrease in the number of complaints received by his office to MEPA’s greater consistency. Only

42 investigations were concluded during this year, which amounts to half of the investigations carried out in the previous year.

Environmental outrage

But most since most of the complaints were fully justified this still indicate a lack of sensitivity to the protection of the environment by MEPA.

In his report the auditor refers to an ODZ development in Mosta disguised as a stable.

“In actual fact a country residence had already been erected surrounded

by a high wall”.

The approval was contrary to the expressed advice of the Environment Protection Department visited the site and prepared a detailed memorandum on the situation.

Falzon also refers to the development of a winery in a sensitive site at Rabat when the applicant was not entitled for this type of development.

“The construction as is being carried out looks more like a country villa then the type of development approved”.

He also notes that despite several complaints from the public, MEPA failed to take effective action against persons who were doing substantial damage to Ghajn Zejtuna in Santa Marija Estate, Mellieha.

Excavations were carried out in the valley bed and pipes laid out within trenches or above ground.

A large site in Gozo of over 1000 square metres was approved for open storage of agricultural machinery (the photographs submitted show a scrap yard) to a farmer who had only 2 tumoli of land registered

in his name. The justification given was that the applicant tilled over 40 tumoli of land in partnership with members of his family.

Falzon notes that in the majority of cases the Environment Protection Directorate and the Planning Control Directorate were consistent in clearly advising refusal of these applications.

“Unfortunately the Development Control Commission went out of its way to try to find an excuse for overturning the recommendations of both Directorates and approving applications which had a detrimental effect on the natural environment”.

In all these cases MEPA failed to take any action against the persons responsible for this outrage on the environment.

“The principle of accountability is not given high priority by the MEPA”.