Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon told Parliament yesterday that the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED) was in fact a strategic plan for the better use of open spaces.
Environment Shadow Minister Marthese Portelli described SPED, on the other hand, as being full of “inadequacies”.
Introducing a motion to amend the plan, Dr Falzon said that in preparing policies, plans and programmes the government would adopt a sequential approach to the use of land where development should be guided.
The three-pronged approached covered the re-use of existing developed land and buildings (through change of use); the re-development of existing developed land and buildings; and, where no other feasible alternatives exist, the use of vacant land.
The document would give people an improved quality of life.
Dr Falzon said the SPED would replace the Structure Plan of 1992, a 23-year-old document which should have been revised after seven years.
It was a privilege that the document had received a unanimous vote in the House Environment Committee because no one had voted against it.
On a point of order, Dr Portelli said that while it was true that the Opposition had agreed to improve the document, the vote had not been unanimous.
Dr Falzon asked whether the Opposition MPs were that negative because now they were sorry they had not voted against. Had they changed their minds?
Not only had the government listened to the NGOs, but there had been a full public consultation.
“But a few of the NGOs were so arrogant and proud that they did not even bother to come for consultation,” Dr Falzon said, emphasising he was not referring to the Opposition.
All the three pages of amendments which formed the motion contained the suggestions proposed by the NGOs and the Opposition. The protection of rural areas was also included in the document, to protect the little countryside left.
Concluding, Dr Falzon said the SPED was the plan for the future and he hoped that the Opposition would not vote against.
Dr Portelli said she could see at least six difficulties with the document. Could the SPED be considered to be legally valid when it went against some provisions of the main Act?
Secondly, there was no justification for each policy contained in the plan. Neither did it make sense to introduce such an important document with a lifespan for five years.
A total of 21 NGOs considered this document to be one that did not reflect their position. And of the 20 amendments put forward by the Opposition, only two were accepted.
Labour MP Marlene Farrugia said that although SPED was not perfect, one could not keep Malta’s planning in limbo due to its delayed release and the expired Structure Plan. This document would serve as the first opportunity for the government and the Opposition to pass a bye-law in full agreement.
She called on the Prime Minister to try to find an alternative to Żonqor Point as the site of the American University.