Nationalist MPs defend development zones exercise

Nationalist MPs yesterday continued to insist in Parliament that the partial revision of the Structure Plan was justified in order to rectify anomalies created when the temporary development zones were drawn up 18 years ago.

Resources Minister Ninu Zammit said an objective analysis of the current exercise was needed. This was an intelligent rationalisation exercise where the government laid down criteria and asked Mepa to identify which land merited inclusion in the development zones, irrespectively of who that land belonged to.

In the 1970s, when Lorry Sant was minister, building schemes used to be changed overnight and no one complained or held protests.

That system continued until 1986. It was well known that land owners at the time had to pay certain people for building permits to be issued, or give them a quarter of the land. He had said this 20 years ago and no one had the guts to sue him for libel. There were no considerations at the time for the environment. How different was the situation now.

In 1987 the new Nationalist government reviewed the whole structure and drew up the temporary development zones. What happened, however, was that several areas which had been in the old building schemes suddenly found themselves outside the development zones. The Cabinet had now therefore decided that where possible, pockets not exceeding 17,000 square metres, which did not consist of agricultural land, would be re-incorporated in the development zones. This was justice. Mr Zammit said his own property was covered by a building permit and, contrary to what the Labour media had alleged, adjoining land now being included in the development zones did not belong to him, although it was right that it was being included in the extensions.

Concluding, Mr Zammit asked if Labour was prepared to commit itself not to extend the development zones any further once it was criticising the current exercise so much. And if the zones were to be extended again, would Malta return to the Lorry Sant methods? In the many years of the present government, development had only been extended by one million square metres, compared to two million square metres every year under Labour. This underlined this government's environmental credentials, Mr Zammit said.

Joe Cassar (PN) spoke on the PN's track record in favour of the environment and recalled how, up to 1987, decisions on building development areas were taken by a particular minister without any consultation. Since then decisions had been taken transparently by Parliament and following prolonged consultation. The Nationalist government clearly wanted to take power out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the citizenry.

The government recognised that there were already enough building development areas, but it also recognised the need for justice to be done with those who had been hard-hit by previous decisions. The criteria used were important because what could have been a hurried temporary decision should be rectified before it was made definitive.

Dr Cassar asked which sites the opposition MPs in the Development Planning Committee had wanted to be withdrawn from the development areas. The minutes of those meetings showed that what the MLP representatives had asked for was an increase, not a decrease, of building development areas. The word "unanimous" was a very common one in the minutes of those committee meetings. So who was for or against the environment?

Who was taking whom for a ride? The Maltese people knew the truth, including that the PN had not suggested the revisions as vote-catching measures. If anything, the PN had lost votes as a result of the exercise.

Nationalist MP Michael Gonzi said that all land owners wanted to develop their property for personal gain and for the improvement of one's family. That was why this exercise had created such a reaction. Those whose land had been included in the exercise were happy and silent, those whose land was not were annoyed and those who were to be affected by the development were also grumbling. There were then those who absolutely did not want any development.

Development brought about certain advantages but the environment inevitably suffered. Therefore, the right balance had to be found.

This was what this exercise was doing. Many people had suffered as a result of the 1988 temporary schemes and the government wished to address those injustices. However, it limited itself to land fitting certain rigorous criteria.

The government could have adopted a different system and included much more land in the development zones, but it opted for rigid criteria to protect the environment and agricultural land.

Joe Falzon (PN) said it worried him that the opposition was saying it was giving its MPs a free vote, the implication being that the MPs otherwise did not enjoy freedom.

He said the exercise which the House was discussing reflected a delicate balancing exercise between the needs of development and the environment, both of which were important.

Mr Falzon said that the majority of the Maltese people were still confused at the opposition's stand. It was obvious the opposition's sense of doing politics meant trying to please everybody without having the courage to take a real stand on any particular issue.

This exercise had been undertaken to solve as many problems as possible without creating other new ones. Mr Falzon said he wanted to praise Mepa employees for having worked hard over the past few weeks to bring this exercise to conclusion after considering the criteria, the consultation process and thousands of submissions. Not only had the government not ignored all those who had protested, indeed changes had been made to the plans as a result of that public consultation.