People take time off over the Christmas period. After indulging in food and an intense week of presents and parties, it is fun to relax, watch DVDs or read a book. Many go walking, cycling or jogging in the countryside, or have a family picnic.

The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to find a quiet and unspoilt area to enjoy the scenery. There are roads, walls, hunting hides and rooms everywhere. Each store room is a potential villa, with landscaped area and driveway. Bit by bit, the countryside is being eaten up.

Several controversial permits were recently granted in rural areas. An agricultural building is to be replaced by a dwelling with a floor space of 280 square metres. Some dilapidated roofless structures, which really should have been removed as they served no purpose, will be converted into a villa and swimming pool. A pile of rubble is morphing into a 50-square metre agricultural store.

In the 20-year period from 1995 to mid-2015, 12,572 building permits were granted in areas outside the development zones. Many might have had valid reasons, for example, agricultural or industrial uses incompatible with urban areas.

Yet, in spite of the increasing scarcity of rural land, the pace continues with around 400 building permits still being granted annually outside the development zones.

The Front Ħarsien ODZ, a group of environmental NGOs, has just called for an independent audit, led by Environment Commissioner David Pace, of the government’s new policy for rural areas.

Various NGOs had sounded warnings when this policy was drafted in 2014, immediately recognising its potential for abuse. At a public debate this October, Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Falzon had said that he was willing to consider changes to this document, and I hope he does.

In the end, it is all about good governance. Planning documents cannot cater for every single instance. When they are too vague, everything is possible. When they are too strict, they can lead to farcical decisions at times. It is the aims and principles of the people taking decisions which determines the outcome.

Sadly, our decision-makers are not aiming to protect the countryside. Everything is up for sale. The proposal to build a university, or whatever this large project is now called, at Żonqor Point has made this very clear.

After 3,000 people walked in the street protesting against it, the government is still forging ahead with that site. It has not heeded the site selection exercises that it requested, and is already transferring this prime piece of public property to the chosen Jordanian developer. A marathon all-night session in Parliament was held to ensure that there would be no delay.

In the end, it is all about good governance

The government had first said that the project would be more viable if it is sited in the countryside. But this does not consider the true value of the land.

Why should land outside the development zones be cheaper than land within urban areas? Presumably, only because it is impossible to build there, so there can be less profit.

If a building permit is to be granted on that site anyway, then is this still a reason for the land to be cheaper? In this scenario it should cost at least the same as land in urban areas – if not more as it is taking away another piece of precious countryside from the nation.

In its pre-Budget proposals this year, the Opposition had advocated that ODZ land should be recognised as having an economic value at least equal that of land in prime development zones. This proposal was criticised as potentially encouraging more building in rural areas, by giving ODZ land a commercial value.

I think the idea is interesting and should be discussed in more depth. Again, it all depends on how it is handled.

Recognising the economic value of ODZ land should certainly not make it easier to get a permit in rural areas. Yet, if an ODZ site is actually developed as is intended at Żonqor, then why should it be valued at less?

Would the Jordanian developers still have preferred Żonqor Point if they had not been given that land on the cheap? What if it had instead been valued the same as, for example, commercial prices in Sliema?

The new Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development states that ODZ land should only be used as a last resort when all other options have been considered. The government has already blatantly ignored this principle with this project, and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so again for other projects.

At one point, Żonqor was described as ‘abandoned’. This is a common and completely flawed reason to promote building in ODZ areas. It ignores the true value of the countryside, for health and well-being, for the variety of plant and animal life, for the beauty of the landscape, for recreation and education, and so much more.

One day it will no longer be possible to go for a relaxing walk in the countryside on Boxing Day. That day edges closer each time another piece of rural land is swallowed up.

petracdingli@gmail.com