The issue is whether the Government, by virtue of its regulatory power, can implement regulations that deprive private owners of the full use and economic value of their property.

In accordance with the established Mepa policies pertaining to designated enclaves in the local Gozo and Comino plan, before a building application is accepted for processing (by the planning authority), it must meet the threshold requirements of at least 75 per cent participation of all adjoining and abutting tenements.

At face value, this policy is workable in most cases, except in cases where the government is the owner a sizable portion of the property within the said enclave. In this case, the policy becomes an obstacle to development for the following reasons.

When the government is both landowner and regulator, all other landowners are locked out

Unless the government, as landowner, agrees with the proposed development plan, the matter stops dead in its tracks.

All the other landowners are thus denied the use and full development of their property, for failure to meet the threshold issue of the consent of at least 75 per cent of the owners involved.

If the government agrees with the plan, the matter can move forward only if the Land Office is in a position to terminate all agricultural leases on the land in question and either opts to act as one of the landowners of the enclave or else to pass the said land over to the Housing Authority to be developed into a housing scheme, the same authority acting as one of the owners of property in the enclave.

Undoubtedly, both the Land Department and the Housing Authority are precluded by law to act as one of the private owners.

How can the rest of the landowners develop their property in their best interests if both the Land Department and the Housing Authority not only fail to cooperate but also become obvious obstacles to the planned development in terms of present Mepa regulations and the relative enclave policy?

In such a case, both the Land Department and the Housing Authority are not in a position to cooperate with the private landowners concerned, who, therefore, will be denied the right to develop their property as they deem fit.

It is quite clear that when the government is both the landowner and the regulator, as when it has a piece of property within an established enclave, all the other landowners are locked out and cannot develop their land in accordance with established law.

Article 37 of the Constitution clearly establishes that “no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where provision is made by a law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition…”

Here, by law the Government, through Mepa, has established an interest in the property by establishing the rule demanding 75 per cent participation in an enclave development application. This to the detriment of private property interests and it is compulsory because there are no waivers to the 75 per cent threshold requirement.

The constitutional provision clearly states that when the government acquires such an interest in private property, adequate compensation has to be made and any person claiming such compensation must be guaranteed right of access to an independent and impartial court etc.

In my opinion, in this case, the government would be acquiring an interest in the private property of an enclave and unless the position is remedied by changing the law, all the private property owners thereof are entitled to compensation for all losses incurred as a result of the government action.

Alternatively, the government has the obligation to change its policies as a regulator to allow all private property owners to develop their land as they see fit.

The enclave policies in the local Gozo and Comino plan, where the government is one of the landowners, are definitely not workable because of the reasons described above. Thus, such obstacles and shackles to development should either be remedied or removed or else the government should compensate the landowners for the loss of property value pursuant to constitutional rights.

The above clearly shows that when Mepa introduced the enclave policy under the last Nationalist Administration, it did so without any forethought or any consultation with the relative departments or authorities.

The Labour Administration is in duty bound to remedy this problematic situation without any delay and procrastination.

Anton Attard was a Labour candidate in the last election on the 13th district