The decision taken by Parliament’s Environment and Development Planning Committee to request a moratorium on new planning policies and decisions is the sanest way to address the current public outcry over the Marsascala university project and put people’s minds at rest that no similar, large-scale projects will be foisted upon them unless they fit within the parameters of a structured plan.
The parliamentary committee was discussing the draft Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) that would replace the 1992 Structure Plan. Despite taking literally decades to get drafted, SPED was severely criticised when it was launched for public consultation, with environment organisations and the Church’s environment commission saying it was a poor replacement for the 1992 plan.
Labour MP Marlene Farrugia, who chairs the parliamentary committee, said that land-use decisions currently being taken already clashed with the basics outlined in the draft SPED, highlighting in particular policies on coastal protection. A vocal critic of the Marsascala ODZ university plan, Dr Farrugia also complained of fragmented planning authority policies issued over the past two years, including some that contradicted the draft SPED.
The inconsistency in the country’s planning regime was recently exposed when it emerged that it was Mepa’s own CEO that identified the Marsascala ODZ site.
The dangers to the country arising from policy inconsistency and from the lack of a strategic plan become more accentuated in light of the government’s constant touting of new and bigger development projects. Proposals such as a bridge to Gozo, a new breakwater in Marsamxett Harbour, an airport in Gozo, a monorail, a train and, possibly soon, a land reclamation project point to the urgent need for a proper strategic plan on the use of land, sea and space resources until 2020.
The 1992 Structure Plan had introduced a radical change in land-use planning in the Maltese islands. Parliament’s approval of that plan was complemented by the setting up of the Planning Authority, an institution that never managed to veer away from controversy but still helped to introduce some measure of control, transparency and discipline in this country’s unruly building industry.
On the other hand, the authority also raised high expectations and, in the eyes of many has failed, especially in environment protection and enforcement.
SPED should aim to improve and add upon the achievements of the 1992 plan by identifying the loopholes and failures and by updating the strategic objectives in light of current government policies and the country’s changing needs.
Considering the country’s mood at the moment, SPED could introduce more rather than less stringent policies governing the use of land.
Malta is far too small and the possible damage done to its environment far too big for the country to take any more risks with large-scale, stand-alone projects. A strategic plan, through an improved SPED, is urgently required to guide and attract potential local and foreign investments to Malta. Projects that fall outside the SPED parameters should be discouraged if not rejected outright.
To achieve a quality leap in land-use planning, a number of measures need to be implemented. The drafters of SPED should truly be open to the feedback from NGOs that, despite two rounds of public consultation, say their contribution has been ignored. There is still time to amend the draft document.
The government should then ensure cross-party consensus on SPED to enable continuity and, most important of all, provide the decision-makers with the necessary moral authority to take the right decisions, no matter how harsh they may be.