|
The announcement that the boundaries for development areas have been redrafted raises many questions. First and foremost there will be the expected assumption that these boundaries have been drawn to favour one individual or group of individuals from others.
In order to avoid these interpretations it is of utmost importance that the way decisions have been taken regarding the proposed extensions are made available to the media and the general public. Transparency and accountability need to be government’s sole guiding posts in this delicate matter.
That a revision of the boundaries is required there is little if no doubt. But that we need more land to develop is erroneous.
George Pullicino as minister for rural affairs and the environment has a delicate task ahead of him. He must at all costs defend the rural environment, ecology and landscape of this country without stifling economic growth.
Rampant speculation is not conducive to rampant economic growth so he does well in blocking more demand for land to be developed.
It is an open secret that the cabinet does not share the same enthusiasm for environmental conservation as Pullicino. To understand the immense political and commercial pressure to extend the development zones, one need only look at the money involved in buying and selling land.
The interest groups are ruthless in their demands and paint anyone who attempts to conserve pristine land as someone interested in preserving the ‘dudu.’ Dudu (worm) being Maltese slang for insect.
Unknowingly to many cabinet ministers and politicians from both sides of the political divide, our entry into the European Union obliges us to protect land on the basis of the habitats directive.
For example many politicians are unaware that the rocky stretches of land known as garigue in English and xaghri in Maltese, represent the richest concentration of wild plants and are protected by the habitats directive.
Pullicino has in the past months been at the forefront of many reforms dealing with ecology. His reforms have not always been well received and in many cases they may have been packaged in the wrong way and worse still marketed imperfectly. Yet in this latest policy change, anyone who wishes to preserve the environment rather than further the speculative thirst for development should be supported.
If what Pullicino says is correct, the demand for more land to construct most especially in Gozo is shocking and downright scandalous. It confirms our predilection that if left to their own devices some Gozitans would turn Gozo into an ugly concrete jungle as they have done in Marsalforn and Xlendi.
Prior to 1987, the development spree was characterised by widespread destruction.
In 1992, a planning authority was created that would base its development brief on the temporary building development areas outlined in 1988. They too were not without disagreement; areas such as Busietta Gardens should have never been included in the temporary building zone.
Needless to say development did take place out of these development zones too, new mega private schools such as the one at L-Imselliet, tourist development such as the former Kempinski Hotel at San Lawrenz and public projects such as Mater Dei were developed without any consideration for the outline development.
It was one sure way of taking a development brief and tearing it to shreds.
We have not yet been able to see the new areas earmarked for development. Yet, three new criteria are being applied.
First that irrigated land will not be considered for development. The second criterion is that MEPA will not be able to sanction anymore illegal development outside the development scheme and thirdly that ecologically sensitive areas will not be considered for any development.
On the negative side, it appears that many illegal constructions already constructed out of the development scheme will be sanctioned.
It is still too early to understand what will happen in the coming weeks.
But it would be in everyone’s interest including politicians, civil society, the media and honest tax paying citizens to agree that this small country of ours needs to come to terms with a stricter planning policy in the interest of future generations and the well being of this small enterprising nation.
|
