In defence of sustainable development and investment

Sylvana Debono, PRO of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, replied (January 15) to my article that practices, such as negative thinking and exaggerated delays in processing applications for sustainable development, discourage investment in Malta.

Mepa justify their stand as being one that discourages speculation but surely they should understand that our project consists of the re-development of a derelict site into a multi-purpose commercial complex and in a town centre requiring socially desirable development.

Far from being an exercise in "speculation", the project in Mosta is in fact an "investment" by our company that consists of leasing space within the complex to business operators. We are also offering to embellish the area, with proper paving, lighting and landscaping, giving the piazza adjacent to our building a much-needed facelift. This type of property investment contributes immediate benefits to the town centre but renders returns to us (the investors) over a long-term period.

It is a pity that Mepa considers such initiatives as "speculation" rather than "entrepreneurial" and "civic-minded" and, in such a scenario, surely "investment" in Malta will be discouraged and we (and the business community in general) face a serious dilemma.

Ms Debono attempts to shift the blame for the delays in Mepa issuing building permits onto others but the reality is one.

There is too much bureaucracy and some of the rules, regulations and guidelines are impractical or are wrongly interpreted and applied. The periods for consultations with "third party" authorities are taking far too long. Communication between the planning directorate and the applicant needs to be improved with problems solved before the case is heard by the development control commission (DCC). The tendency by some case officers to take the easy way out by simply recommending a refusal to reasonable proposals should be stamped out and the quality of reports by the planning directorate needs to be improved. Most importantly, mentalities have to change and the attitude of some at Mepa who look upon investors in sustainable development as though they are a foe and not a friend must be eradicated.

We have attended DCC hearings where all sorts of different cases are lumped together to be heard by the DCC board on the same afternoon with no distinction between applications for frivolous, small, medium or large developments. This results in cases even of the more serious nature being put off to later dates and further delays are thus experienced.

I see no valid reason why we are kept waiting for months to get permits for the "change of use" on the ground floor levels of our building and for the internal alterations. The change of use is simply from one commercial activity to another and causes no problem whatsoever. The minor alterations simply include shifting a secondary internal staircase by a few feet and the construction of a wall to improve safety in the building.

We are absolutely in favour of having in the building facilities for "equal opportunities and access for all". Our plans included such facilities but we faced the unreasonable demand that every single retail outlet must provide a restroom for the disabled. Our proposal is the practical one whereby in common areas accessible to all we will provide required facilities for the disabled as is normal in modern-day shopping complexes both in Malta and abroad.

Our proposal for the receded floor is not a "speculative request", as wrongly assumed by Ms Debono, and in fact the additional space is vital to enhance the feasibility of the language school element of the project. In essence, the planning directorate is making "a mountain out of a mole hill" as the proposed receded floor is relatively small and its visual impact negligible. Furthermore, it is crystal clear and Mepa knows very well that they have given permits for four floors and even more to nearby buildings. We have documentary proof that these permits were issued by Mepa itself and there is absolutely no doubt that commitments of more than three floors already exist along Constitution Street, in Mosta. It would be a travesty of justice if the application to construct a receded floor is denied.

Further delays in Mepa's processing of our application for this receded floor cannot be justified and nor can the directorate's recommendation for a refusal, which is tantamount to recommending to the DCC that they should deny us the right to receive equal treatment to the other buildings in the same locality that have been allowed four full floors or a fourth receded floor. It must also be said that none of the buildings we can point out to Mepa that have been allowed four floors have provided car parking facilities, whereas our building has two levels underground for this purpose, meaning it merits the receded floor even more.

The DCC heard this case on December 21 but its decision was postponed as the planning directorate apparently failed to complete a report in time and the case was referred back to an executive committee for direction leading yet again to more delays.

We listened to the deliberations of DCC members at this hearing and I must say some of the arguments put forward are cause for concern. Apparently, there are buildings which have a fourth floor illegally. These have been there for years with no authority compelling the owners to demolish the existing fourth floor. The situation therefore is that those who built their fourth floor illegally got away with it and are "accepted" whereas others, such as our company, that respect the law, are to be denied. A DCC member said that in a case such as ours it would be very probable that the developer would win his case at the appeals stage. But why make us wait so long if we already merit the permit?

One member of the DCC gave us hope and a breath of fresh air in expressing his opinion that developments such as ours are good for the economy - this is the common sense that our country needs.

The current case of our property development in Mosta reminds us of another bad experience encountered with Mepa - The Mayfair Complex in St George's Bay. In that case also the planning directorate reported wrongly on height restrictions and commitments and recommended refusals. Mepa unreasonably wanted our building restricted to four floors while nearby and in the surrounding areas they issued permits to others for heights of six or more floors. My company had to wait for years to get the merited permits. Ultimately, we had to seek recourse to the Ombudsman's office who ruled in our favour.

It was basically negative attitudes by Mepa that had delayed unnecessarily the completion of The Mayfair Complex. The eventual issuance of the building permits finally enabled our investment to be realised and to positive aspects being achieved, namely the generation of employment and the accommodation within the building of hundreds of foreign visitors who contribute directly and indirectly to the tourism industry in particular and to Malta's economy in general.

I assure Ms Debono that my opinion that Mepa is discouraging investment is shared by many serious business entrepreneurs and also by many citizens who are active members of the business community.

My article of January 13 was meant primarily as constructive criticism of Mepa's practices and to call for reforms that would lead to efficiency in the processing of applications for building permits and lead to fair decisions that would actually encourage entrepreneurship, rather than being counter-productive.

If Mepa cannot accept this call for reforms maybe it would be much better for all concerned that we are informed from the onset that they are not interested in our type of investment. We can then stop wasting precious time and focus our attention on investing in other countries where investors are treated more kindly. This would be a shame as Malta needs to boost the economy and must create a climate in which both local and foreign investors feel welcomed.

Mr Montanaro is managing director of the Exalco Group of Companies.