Developers insist 2006 rationalisation plans must be ‘honoured’

Amid calls to the government to save 17,530 square metres of land, at Tal-Marnisi in Marsaxlokk, the Malta Developers Association insists that ‘approved rationalisation plans must be respected’

AD wants government to oppose the development of agricultural land in Marsaxlokk
AD wants government to oppose the development of agricultural land in Marsaxlokk

The 2006 rationalisation plans were approved by parliament and this must be respected, the Malta Developers Association said.

“While the MDA recognises that the addition of some of these sites to developable areas was a controversial decision, the fact is that a decision taken by Parliament cannot in any manner be rendered null by the Planning Authority’s technical committee. On the contrary, the Planning Authority is obliged to seek solutions after leaving people in limbo for so many years,” the developers said.

It was reacting to a press conference by Alternattiva Demokratika in which it urged parliamentary secretary Deborah Schembri against approving the development of agricultural land at Tal-Marnisi in Marsaxlokk. The area falls within the 2006 rationalisation exercise which included the addition of building zones by 2.3%.

AD in fact acknowledged the 2006 parliamentary decision, but also recalled that the then Labour opposition had voted against this type of development.

The MDA said that since the areas were approved for development by parliament, a substantial number of site purchases took place.

“MDA cannot accept the attitude of the few that are ignoring these facts and expect the state to meddle with citizens’ rights by first declaring land as developable and, many years later, abruptly change the status of the same land.

“A lot of money and time was invested in the proposals submitted to the Planning Authority by means of a Planning Control application.”

The developers went on to argue that if the government were to recognise pieces of land as non-developable, then it would be obliged to pay damages to the owners who bought the land on the basis of a decision taken by the same State “that is now being asked to have second thoughts”.

More in National