The Times of Malta recently reported that the now infamous Paceville masterplan has been put on the backburner and might not even see the light of the day after the next general election.

Is this a victory for common sense and social justice?

The controversy over the potential conflict of interest of Mott MacDonald, a UK firm commissioned by the Planning Authority to draft the Paceville masterplan, the expropriation of private property, the shifting of open spaces, businesses at risk, the sale of public land for a mere pittance, as well as no social impact assessments, are all part and parcel of a flawed masterplan.

Despite the initial decline to participate in public consultation meetings as obliged by law, the Planning Authority finally found the courage, notwithstanding doing its utmost to limit public involvement, to face  residents and NGOs over the Paceville masterplan proposal, which was published in September 2016.

Following a public outcry, the Planning Authority executive chairman stated last December that a “second draft” of the masterplan would be put forward by April or May 2017. It seems though that work on the new planning framework has fallen behind schedule.

But is this just a matter of political convenience? With a general election just round the corner this decision definitely lacks a level of credibility. All indicators suggest that it does not pay the government to upset residents and the commercial community so close to the elections.

Also, why risk giving the Opposition party and other interested stakeholders a platform to criticise the government? Such a postponement can also serve to entice potential developers and interested parties to once again vote for the Labour Party with the hope that they will be ‘rewarded’ at a later stage. Sadly, during these last four years we have all witnessed the government ‘honouring’ pre-electoral promises at our expense.

As already stated by many, including myself, the Paceville masterplan must not be a desktop exercise, exclusively safeguarding the interests of the few over the interests of the many. The Planning Authority must involve all stakeholders, including the respective local councils.

The government should also refrain from taking a piecemeal approach in the area. The recent granting of the formal ITS areato a private developer is a case in point.

It is socially repulsive that a small number of people, guided only by self-serving motives, decide the fate of others. The government ought to stop promoting the interests of the few over the concerns of the many. If this happens, then it takes us back to an era when our country lacked democratic credentials.

Hopefully, we have learned our lesson.