Passing the buck on Mepa

The long suffering Maltese public who has been complaining for many years about the abuses in the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in favour of abusive developers are not amused when their Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment, in his interview with Steve Mallia (December 6) criticises the Archbishop because he added his voice to the country's lament of corruption inside Mepa without being specific and without naming offenders.

Does he really expect our Archbishop, who has a reputation to uphold, to divulge names and details of abuses brought to his knowledge during the course of his priestly duties? Or is the minister just being facetious at our expense?

I am just one sufferer who did make specific complaints to Mepa itself, to our politicians, to the Ombudsman, to Mepa's auditor and in the press about the abusive construction of illegal commercial garages in our residential zone. The illegal garages remained there for many years in spite of stop and enforcement notices. These never stopped anything and they were never enforced by any direct action.

This procrastination was actually the prelude to changes in the regulations which favoured the illegal developers so that what had been illegal for many years suddenly became legitimised.

We got expressions of sympathy galore together with promises of investigation and remedial action, especially whenever elections were imminent, but never any real effective action. Politicians blame the "independence" of Mepa; Mepa blames the lack of means to enforce; both blame the Appeals Board and its immunity from scrutiny by the law courts and the Ombudsman laments that his complaints fall on deaf ears.

This never-ending passing of the buck never stops on anybody's desk so that we had to conclude that we were up against an uncaring mutual back-scratching cabal practising "I scratch your back and you scratch mine" and with the monied developer always coming out on top.

We made very specific public accusations against a named Mepa employee but we are not aware of any action by Mepa or its auditor. On the contrary, Mepa's PRO came out in defence of its employee. He had brazenly approached us with the incredible proposition that we should close our eyes to the developer's avowed intention not to abide by the conditions which the "independent" Appeals Board was going to impose and, in return, the abusive developer would condescend to raise the height of his opramorta to that demanded by the law!

What does the minister mean exactly when he claims that whenever people passed to him information about any abuse he would pass the information on to the audit officer?

This abusive developer encountered no difficulty in obtaining a permit for a public service garage at a time when his garage was under a stop and enforcement notice and when Mepa had insisted that the abusive garage would not be put to use until it issued a final compliance certificate.

This abuse was made possible by an unbelievable political decision that trade permits would be issued forthwith and without prior scrutiny. This "permit" enabled the Appeals Board to authorise very large entrance dimensions even when Mepa's Development Control Commission had refused the application and this refusal had not been appealed by the developer.

The permit was accompanied by conditions which had to be adhered to within six months, otherwise the permit would be considered as having been withdrawn. Today, two and a half years after the Appeals Board's decision, the conditions have still not been complied with and the permit is not being considered by Mepa to have been withdrawn because the extra-large entrances are still there.

Our experience disproves the minister's claim that "if we have information about someone we will take the necessary action" and supports the Archbishop's lament of corruption inside Mepa.