Development boundaries

I refer to Environment Ministry PRO Ray Bezzina's reply (July 11) on the development boundary of Iklin. According to four independent NGOs, the criteria issued by Cabinet memo are anything but the basis of proper development planning and control. They are alien to any planning principles and reek of Maltese-style politics. I fly all over Europe and I have mental pictures of almost all towns and cities from the air. There is no such rule to draw straight line boundaries at the end of the zone. Moreover, most area boundaries are finger like in shape to include rows of greenery and trees in between houses.

Locally, it seems, the principle is to destroy the few trees naturally grown in green areas to accommodate speculation and to suffocate any residential blocks such as ours with further unnecessary development.

The criteria have been used incorrectly, distorting the supposed pocket into extreme east-west directions to claim side contact with existing development. I appeal to Mr Bezzina to look at the photo published in these columns on July 10. The area concerned is virgin land with carob trees and incidentally such areas are suppose to be protected by his very Ministry.

Another point is that one would have taken certain decisions affecting one's life savings and property based on the norms being followed for these last 18 years. These norms were stable and consistent as they were the result of studies endorsed by competent people enrolled by Mepa. To bypass our own planning and environment agency with a Cabinet memo is not becoming of any civilised country. To change the very goal posts for normal citizens to the advantage of mega developers is not European at all, to say the least.

If the government intends to go ahead with this destruction nonetheless, and it has already compensated a land owner for loss of value due to boundary changes, then we expect the same government to pass through Parliament the principle across the board. We have no less rights than land owners and we would suffer damages to our property value just the same by the same scheme. If this is the principle then it could be claimed that the government is acting on behalf of all the people who elected it.