|
The interview carried out with Anglu Xuereb on 10 July 2005 is an exercise in creating a scenario based on half-truths and incorrect details.
The planning process in Malta is governed by MEPA regulations and this is done through a transparent regime of regulations that one has to go through. It is thus very strange that a leading entrepreneur blames the authorities for the time that it took for a decision to be taken in connection with his golf course application. What are we after? Shall we revert back to the days when the minister himself, arbitrarily, used to decide on planning and development applications? Are we questioning whether an application for a major project, such as a professional golf course should require an expert and informed advice? This is done through various means, including a thorough Environment Impact Assessment.
The interview gives the impression that government should have blocked the application even before these processes were conducted. Is this the state of play we all want? Or is it better that all decisions are taken after a process, lengthy at times but fair and transparent, and one that considers all aspects before a decision is made? I will not go into the allegations that a decision on the golf course application had already been made before the decision was actually taken by MEPA board. However if this is the case, I find it very ironic that the developer has applied with MEPA for reconsideration of his application.
The interviewee also shows his disappointment at the fact that MEPA did not shortlist the site he had applied upon at Verdala in the latest exercise that was done on Government’s instructions. But why should MEPA indicate the site as a possible golf course area when the same site referred to had already failed the test on various counts, primarily the heavy loss of agricultural land it would have brought about?
The feature also misleads on the issue of Government’s decision to choose the area at Ix-Xaghra l-Hamra as the possible site for the golf course development. It is not true that Government short-listed its own site. MEPA did, after an evaluation exercise that included various other sites that have all been made public. The chosen site offers various benefits that the others don’t match for various reasons. This includes the fact that since the proposed area is much bigger than what is needed for the golf course development, this could lead to a win-win situation whereby the preferred bidder is also obliged to provide the resources for the management of the areas, mostly protected, that surround the golf course site.
Another misconception that needs to be addressed is that by no means a final decision on the golf course has been taken. This stage will be reached once all impact studies and tests are exhausted and after the whole consultation process is also effected. That is how the whole process works and I am sure that no one will doubt that government, who put the whole system in place at the first instance, will do anything to disturb the cross-checks and compliance tests that all development applications have to endure.
No half-truths will off-track government’s efforts in striking the fine, yet possible balance of sustainable development and environmental awareness.
Ray Bezzina
Communications Co-ordinator
Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment
|
