Closing off boundaries to safeguard the environment

A very limited adjustment will be made to the existing development boundaries, changes that are to be incorporated in a partial Structure Plan review. I consider these changes as closing off development boundaries.

Settlements in Malta will be more compact and have a more logical well-defined boundary. Closing off also means it will be more difficult to extend development zones further at some future date. This is best illustrated with an example.

Where there is a bypass at the periphery of a town, no land beyond the bypass is to be included within the development boundary. This puts an end to past situations where a bypass to a village is built only to have further development beyond the bypass.

The settlement pattern in Gozo is different and this necessitated a different approach in the criteria that were approved by Cabinet.

Forty two per cent of the land which is being proposed for inclusion was already proposed for inclusion in the various draft and approved local plans (for example, the employment node at Swatar). Some areas being included within the development boundary were already developed in accordance with a permit. Mtarfa is a case in point.

Like most issues, there are two opposing positions on the changes to the development boundaries. There are those who argue that land should be released for development. On the other hand, there are those who argue that there should not be any changes to development boundaries. The argument is based on the need to protect our open countryside. The government is more sympathetic with the second group. The government is very conscious of the need to safeguard the environment.

Having said that, the government cannot ignore important realities. Prior to 1988, many had bought a small plot to build their family home, only to find that the plot was taken out of the development zone. Provided that no significant environmental cost will result, there is no reason why the government should not consider including such plots within the development boundary.

The 1988 exercise was carried out hurriedly to stop the high rate at which land was being taken up for development. Large areas of the countryside were saved from development. That was a courageous decision taken in favour of the environment and in spite of the significant pressures. Incidentally, the Labour opposition was against.

The 1988 exercise also resulted in areas of land which, although outside development zone, were surrounded by development on three out of four sides. These "pockets" of land cannot be considered as forming part of open countryside because their configuration and proximity to development make them almost urban in nature.

Only 10 per cent of the land requested for inclusion during the local plans consultation process will actually be included within the development boundary. There are some who trivialise this fact. The public consultation process will probably reveal that many of the owners of the remaining 90 per cent feel their land also warrants inclusion.

The temporary provisions schemes (TPSs) were intended to be precisely that, temporary. These changes are being made 18 years after the amendments to the scheme boundaries and they will be effective for 10 years. This means that over a period of almost three decades only minor amendments will be carried out and these are required to resolve some of the anomalies that resulted from the TPSs.

This is not an easy decision but it is the Cabinet's view that it cannot be postponed any longer. As much as I am convinced that this government will be re-elected in 2008, there is the risk that a different administration may take a different view and choose to be excessively generous in releasing land to the detriment of rural areas. The well known practice of Labour candidates of promising everything to everyone would have resulted in significant speculation prior to the election and possibly serious repercussions on the environment after the 2008 election. The government wanted to prevent this.

Amendments will be made in accordance to criteria which have been decided upon by the Cabinet. The criteria will ensure that eventual decisions on individual sites will be taken in a fair and equitable manner.

The public consultation process by Mepa currently underway is also very important. With the information and feedback received, Mepa and, subsequently, Parliament will be able to take better informed decisions in the interest of fairness and for the good of the community and the environment.

Closing off development boundaries will benefit the environment. It provides for settlement boundaries that are rational and, therefore, less likely to be subject to extension in some future date.

Mr Pullicino is Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment.