A slap in the face

Shame on Government for even daring to consider a second wave of boundary extensions at the request of more gold rush developers.

Social injustice comes about when home-buyers pay hard-earned money for a home with a view, along with every assurance that no development could spring opposite, only to have this taken away from them while their property value plummets.

A European directive prescribes against the manner in which the new zones are being bundled through Parliament. The Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) regulations specifically state that an assessment should be carried out for all plans and programmes, including those prepared for town or country planning and land use, urban development projects included.

No one in power has yet dared to contest claims of a breaching of the EU directive on Strategic Environment Assessment which Government is about to bypass through the hurriedly proposed urbanisation of green areas all over Malta and Gozo.

With the deadline for enforcing the directive only days away, the government appears intent on bulldozing its way ahead to avoid scrutiny of a European standard that we had come to expect would be honoured.

The Structure Plan Review, which itself has undergone a strategic environment assessment, contains a paper on the oversupply of housing land. A conservative estimate of existing potential for housing development is that 98,300 residential units may be provided in the Maltese Islands within the framework of the current Structure Plan. This estimate does not take into account the 23,000 permanently vacant dwellings or revisions in building heights limitations currently proposed in the local plans.

The Housing Topic Paper estimates that to cater for projected growth in population and households, a total of 43,400 dwelling units would be required by 2020. This figure includes provision for second homes as well. The topic paper shows that the current supply exceeds conservative estimates of housing requirements by more than double the amount of the housing capacity required. MEPA's own data clearly show that there is no need to extend the boundaries of the Temporary Provisions Schemes. 

Government is in a state of panic, apparently hurtling illegal development through Cabinet in order to appease powerful developers. MEPA is not only impotent with big developers, as found by the Ombudsman, but appears to be equally powerless to withstand arm-twisting from politicians, who themselves appear to be subject to the whims of developers.

This latter breed are becoming quite brazen, in the face of weak enforcement and failure on the part of the authorities to control the greed which is ruining the country. The accelerated rate of more countryside and open vistas lost to buildings is certainly a slap in the face for the whole nation.

No details are available so far on the Malta Transport Authority Website on the ADT alternative proposal to the Manikata tunnel. As urban development looks set to pot-belly outward over existing green belt boundaries, plans to build upward as well as outward are up for public consultation on the MEPA Website. The deadline for objections to the idea of tall buildings in Marsascala, Selmun and other areas closes today: www.mepa.org.mt/Planning/index.htm?planning_policy/floor_area_ratio/mainframe.htm1

"Natural Reaction" article of June 20, 2004

Reference is made to the article "Carob graveyard, rapid alert and the smell of doughnuts" published in "Natural Reaction" on June 20, 2004 in which it was stated: "The DCC board in question appears to be in need of a serious review in view of the many bypasses currently being engineered regarding planning decisions."

Both the author of the article, Anne Zammit, and the editor of The Sunday Times, Laurence Grech, wish to make it clear that they did not intend to, directly or indirectly, cast any reflection on the good standing and professional integrity of the DCC board referred to in the article, and the good standing and professional integrity of its members.

The editor and author of the article regret any inconvenience that may have been caused by the publication of the article.