Revisiting development boundaries

The temporary provision schemes, which came into effect way back in 1988, had been effected by Parliament by the newly elected Nationalist government. These schemes attempted to delineate committed development, while aiming to curb urban sprawl spurred by a lack of a coherent planning policy framework.

These schemes, although designed to be temporary, have been relied upon since 1988, pending the completion of the much awaited local plans. In the interim period, successive administrations have pledged in their respective electoral manifestos the need to revisit the temporary provision schemes in the name of social justice, spelling the need to address occurring anomalies, which, typically, consist of irrational infill gaps between committed development boundaries as well as tracts of land delineated by unfinished road alignments.

In its 1998 electoral programme, during its short spell in opposition, the Nationalist Party called for the revision of the temporary provision schemes, which, incidentally, had been introduced by a previous PN administration. The PN pledged to identify those tracts of land that were left outside the development scheme boundary in 1988 with no sound planning justification.

That having been said, it seems that the draft local plans, prepared by Mepa's own executive arm during the course of recent years, were in general a mere reflection of the temporary provision schemes, failing to take cognisance of the government's electoral promises.

It was therefore politically legitimate for the Cabinet to call Mepa to subscribe to the government's own political commitment. To this end, the Cabinet has communicated a clear framework to Mepa to enable the preparation of the rationalisation of development boundaries.

The framework laid out by the Cabinet lists a number of set criteria, which include the following:

¤ The site must be bounded by three out of four sides (or two out of three sides) by committed areas of development, exceptions to which are limited to those tracts of land supported by multiple ownership, and where plots were sold off separately.

¤ Sites must not be larger than 17,000 square metres.

¤ Sites should not be released for development if they would result in an awkward configuration, such as shallow depths in order to avoid unbuilt areas.

¤ Environmentally sensitive sites, such as scheduled sites, irrigated agricultural land, valleys and areas within 20 metres of ridges are specifically excluded from this exercise.

¤ Archaeological sensitive sites, which potentially fall in line with the above criteria, are to be released only after a thorough archaeological study.

¤ Developments should be in a way as to create visually acceptable end of development solutions, thus avoiding the creation of blank unsightly walls as well as backyards facing the ODZ area, the latter being typical of most of the peripheral areas in our towns and villages.

¤ The infrastructure contribution (to offset costs related to road works, which include drainage, water and road construction), is to be fully recovered by applicants for developments that will take place within the revised boundaries.

Although Labour, in its preliminary reaction, has unequivocally stated that the process lacks transparency, it failed to state whether it agrees in principle with the undertaking of this exercise. As a start, Labour is to state whether there is scope for such revision. If not, it should declare clearly the underlying reasons.

If, on the other hand, Labour feels it is prudent to revisit the anomalies inflicted by the temporary provision schemes, it must immediately indicate whether it agrees with the criteria set out by the Cabinet, stating which parts, if any, merit reconsideration.

On a separate note, it is strongly recommended that Mepa not only acknowledges the hundreds of submissions envisaged to reach its offices in the next weeks, which submissions will refer to portions of land that have been left out of the proposed rationalisation scheme.

It is recommended that Mepa should reply to each submission, stating the rationale justifying its actions against the key criteria set by the Cabinet. It must ensure that the merits justifying the proposed revisions should be mutatis mutandis carried forward and applied for each submission. It is only in this way that this delicate process will remain transparent.

At the end, we still have to wait and see whether the Labour opposition will vote in favour of the revised boundaries. I have a strong feeling that the Labour opposition cannot politically afford to vote against the revision.

Mr Musumeci is mayor of Siggiewi and a member of the executive council of the Nationalist Party.