Debate starts on development zones extension

The parliamentary debate on the extension of the building development zones opened yesterday within the House Development Planning Committee with ministers explaining the purpose of the extension and opposition MPs asking several questions on the criteria used.

Environment Minister George Pullicino said the extension was a compromise between the many requests which had been made for land to be included in the development zones during the public consultation process and the fact that the land in the development boundaries was already enough to meet the people's needs.

Mr Pullicino said the boundaries of the development zones had been declared temporary way back in 1989 when Parliament approved the development schemes and it was always planned that the issue would be addressed at a later stage.

The matter was taken in hand by Mepa, which started drawing up the local plans. Indeed, 46 per cent of the land in the extension was actually indicated by Mepa. However, since the local plans were drawn up by different teams, the government had produced criteria which had to be followed in a uniform manner for the exercise to be complete.

Charles Buhagiar (MLP) asked whether all the land which Mepa had proposed for inclusion had actually been included. Mr Pullicino said that all Mepa's suggestions had been included. The government only intervened because it believed the exercise was not complete.

Labour MP Roderick Galdes said that in the early 1990s, the government had brought over consultants to advise on the drawing up of local plans. Who had drawn up this strategy, the consultants or the government? Had this process failed completely or were there anomalies in local plans which the government felt should be addressed? Development boundaries, he said, were not being closed but opened. What led the government to follow this strategy?

Mr Pullicino said that the consultants had been brought over for the drawing up of the Structure Plan which was approved in 1992, and not for local plans. The boundaries, which up to now were temporary, were now being made permanent. The Structure Plan had adopted the boundaries as temporary and the local plans had to give them a permanent definition.

Mr Buhagiar asked if it was a serious planning principle to include what some people asked to be included, rather than what should be included.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said that had the governemnt gone beyond the quests made, the extension would have been much bigger.

Mr Buhagiar said that if this was the case, the criteria the government was using were very liberal and needed to be tightened.

The committee will start discussing the extensions by locality tomorrow.