Protecting our countryside

Protecting the countryside was, is and will remain a priority for the government. The building zones as approved by Parliament in 1989 are being reviewed through the local plan process. As evidenced by the various draft local plans that have been issued for public consultation by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the general direction is towards the retention of the existing scheme boundaries.

This does not mean status quo. We still need to carry out an exercise to address anomalies and assert further rationalisation of scheme boundaries in order to have better definition. The few exceptions to this are minor rationalisation of the scheme boundaries to address anomalies that resulted from the 1989 development schemes.

The need to prevent further development sprawl has long been felt. Since the 1960's Large tracts of countryside and agricultural land have been lost. The needs of a growing population and a growing economy, coupled with higher standards, necessitated the take-up of large areas of land for development. Speculation was a factor which resulted in more land being included within the development scheme. This phenomenon was rampant in the 1970s and early 1980s.

In the late 1980s, the newly-elected Nationalist government was conscious of the problems of excessive urban sprawl. An exercise was carried out whereby land which was inappropriately released for development in the early 1980s was removed from the building schemes.

The result was the Temporary Provisions Schemes of 1989. Many hectares of countryside were saved from development by a parliamentary decision. This was definitely an unpopular move but a much needed one.

Notwithstanding this revision, a good amount of land in Kalkara earmarked for development since the 1960s was retained as a building zone in 1989. However, during the Grand Harbour Local Plan revision in 2002 an area of 10,000 square metres of developable land was excluded because it was considered environmentally highly sensitive. Ten tumoli of land were thus protected from development.

It is no easy task to withdraw land from the building zone. Land suitable for development costs hundreds of thousands of liri and clearly there would be resistance from land owners.

The government had the courage to take the decision to remove this sizeable area from the development zone at Kalkara. Politically, the decision was even more difficult because the land was owned by the family of a then Nationalist Member of Parliament. The government's decision saved an area of countryside within Kalkara valley.

Statements regarding Kalkara give the impression that the government released land for development in Kalkara valley these past few years. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire area was earmarked for development since the 1960s. The development that is taking place now is due to decisions taken over 40 years ago.

Some refer to the development at Kalkara as speculation. This is also mistaken. My understanding of speculation is when someone buys land outside a development zone at a low price. He/she will then seek to have it included within the development zone in order to reap a significant increase in value. No such thing happened in Kalkara valley for the simple reason that the land was developable since the 1960s. It is regrettable some individuals refuse to acknowledge straightforward facts.

On a more positive note, I welcome initiatives that favour the protection of the countryside. I state this in the context of the position taken by a number of organisations on the need to protect Fomm ir-Rih and the countryside surrounding Bahrija from development. The initiative signifies an increased awareness among the public about the importance of retaining and protecting areas of unspoilt countryside outside development zones.

The organisations were, however, reacting to false information that may have been given out by landowners. As the minister responsible for planning and as a Maltese citizen, I am confident that the planning system is sufficiently robust to provide important countryside areas such as Bahrija and Fomm ir-Rih adequate protection from insensitive development. In any case, up to now not even an outline application for development has been submitted to Mepa.

Whilst appreciating the initiative, I take exception to a comment made, as reported in The Sunday Times of May 29, whereby the issue of Bahrija/Fomm ir-Rih was compared to that relating to Kalkara valley.

This comparison is totally inappropriate and misleading. Kalkara valley was a building zone for over 40 years; Bahrija countryside and Fomm ir-Rih are outside development zone.

According to the draft North West Local Plan (issued for public consultation), this area is to remain outside development zone. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to keep this area as open countryside.

Protecting the environment is a priority, but at the same time there is a consistent need to generate jobs to sustain economic and social development. The ability to strike a suitable balance between environmental protection and economic development is what good governance is about. It is one thing to criticise; it is another to find solutions to the many demanding requirements of society.

It was a Nationalist government that made the tough choices in favour of the countryside. More than that, Nationalist administrations have developed a planning system providing for adequate protection of the countryside, while meeting the economic and social needs of the country. If there were another party in government, what would our precious countryside look like today? I wonder!

Mr Pullicino is Minister for the Environment and Rural Affairs.