The House Committee for Environment and Planning yesterday agreed to the Mepa policy proposing there should be no new cemeteries – only extensions of existing ones, while it called for the preservation of their historical character.
Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Falzon said the Policy and Design Guidance for Cemeteries issued by the planning authority was not aimed at permitting new cemeteries but at permitting extensions to existing ones.
He outlined the legislative framework which regulates burials, pointing out that this activity was covered by ordinances with no provision for land use planning. The Mepa policy took into account the environmental constraints, the construction methodology and the management of the area, as well as alternative burial methods such as resomation, cryomation and aquamation.
Ryan Callus (PN) said it was positive that the sector was being regulated and also no new cemeteries were envisaged. He said this would reduce pressure on Outside Development Zones, adding that market forces on this sector were strong.
Ing. Callus said alternative burial methods might be offensive to human dignity – an argument which goes beyond religious beliefs.
The policy as proposed did not however provide for the preservation of historical cemeteries and while one might envisage extensions, the main issue should be this.
He asked for reassurance that cemeteries would be protected and their character preserved.
Charles Buhagiar (PL) said that some cemeteries were not extendable since they were hemmed in by development. Meanwhile, the demand for graves became more pressing year after year.
He said some historical cemeteries could be rehabilitated and extended. This was an economic concern and could encourage investment by the private sector.
Government Whip Godfrey Farrugia pointed out that resomation was an accelerated form of decomposition, after which a family would still have remains to keep dear.
He said that while it was true that cemeteries were regulated by demand and supply, the current under-supply was inflating the cost of graves.
Dr Farrugia said that with the problems related to supervision by the Public Health authorities, he could not agree with Mr Buhagiar. Dr Farrugia did not believe that the private sector should be encouraged to enter this market.
Dr Falzon said there appeared to be unanimous approval that there should be no new cemeteries and that their historical aspects should be safeguarded.
He too warned that opening the sector to third parties might lead to speculation which, in this sector, would be very dangerous. He said that extensions should be made where necessary in full respect of the character of the existing cemeteries.
A discussion ensued as to whether the historical part of the cemeteries should be segregated or not.
Concerns were raised about the compatibility between new and historical designs, and the understanding was that the decision over compatibility should be taken by Mepa.
Several cemeteries were scheduled and extensions would have to work within the scheduling parameters.