A parliamentary committee yesterday approved amend-ments to the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, with government members voting in favour and the Opposition abstaining.
The approval by the House Committee for Planning and the Environment followed lengthy and detailed discussions on various clauses in the SPED and will now be placed on the agenda for discussion in plenary where further changes may be done.
SPED is set to replace the current Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, designed in the early 1990s. The document foresees, among other things, the building of a cruise liner terminal and airstrip in Gozo.
Marthese Portelli (PN) said the Opposition still had reservations on the entire document.
It does not agree that SPED should be approved in its entirety: the document is not strong enough on conservation and is vague on “feasible development”.
Amendments include safeguarding rubble walls,conservation areas and the historic skyline and protecting areas of ecological and landscape value
The Opposition, she said, feels that the general presumption against development in protected areas should be more entrenched.
The main criticism levelled at the document by major NGOs such as Din l-Art Ħelwa and Friends of the Earth was that the result of the public consultation was not reflected in the document submitted to the committee. The chair, Labour MP Marlene Farrugia, had assured them their proposals would be discussed.
During the session, she insisted that while some elements in the suggestions put forward by NGOs and the Opposition were repetitions of what SPED already contained, there was no harm in including them since they would serve to strengthen the conservation principles.
Among the amendments made were those safeguarding rubble walls, conservation areas and the country’s historic skyline and protecting areas of ecological and landscape value.
Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon said that while there was no objection to the safeguards, other legal documents existed that also protected culturally and ecologically sensitive areas.
Mepa officials pointed out that no specific clause should be tied to public consultation since this in itself might imply exclusion. They said the principle of public consultation was enshrined in the law and was universally applicable.