Cabinet has decided on a set of criteria upon which decisions relating to amendments to the development boundary are to be based. The rationalisation process is required to address anomalies that resulted from the 1989 exercise. Anomalies include areas of land which were left outside development zones but which are surrounded on three sides by development within scheme.

Mepa has launched a public consultation process on the rationalisation of the development boundaries. Maps showing sites that are to be included in the development boundary have been issued. These sites were selected on the basis of the criteria as decided upon by Cabinet. Mepa has also issued a document that sets out the criteria as communicated to it by the government.

This exercise is being carried out 18 years after the Temporary Provision Schemes were drawn up and they should be effective for a period of 10 years. This means that in almost 30 years, the development boundaries will be changed only once and only to a very limited degree.

The reactions to this exercise are varied, although somewhat predictable. There are those who argue that there should not be any changes at all to the scheme boundaries, primarily because there is sufficient land within scheme for development.

This argument was actively taken into account when the issue of scheme rationalisation was being discussed within the government. The general feeling was that, had the government decided not to make any changes to scheme boundaries, it would have been perpetuating further an injustice that resulted from past government decisions. Allow me to explain further.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, decisions on what land to include within development boundaries were taken by the minister of the day in an ad hoc manner and without any planning or environmental considerations. Large tracts of land were included within the development boundary.

When the Nationalists were elected to power they were faced with a very difficult situation. Failure to take action fast would have meant that large sections of our countryside would have been lost to development. The development boundaries were therefore drawn up in a relatively short period of time. Significant areas were excluded from the development zone and decisions were taken without the full information being available.

There were several people who lost out in the process. There were those who had invested all their life saving in the 1970s and early 1980s in a plot of land, only to find that they could not develop it. There were also situations where land remained outside the development boundary and undevelopable, even though it was surrounded virtually on all sides with development (with permits or within scheme). Failure by the government to address this issue would have been an injustice against these people.

It was always the government’s intention to review these boundaries so that those lands whose exclusion from the development zone was not justified, could be included. The government has declared on a number of occasions that the development boundaries were to be reviewed to address anomalies.

The process being adopted is fair and equitable because it is based on clearly defined criteria. This approach is a safeguard so that decisions will be taken impartially, irrespective of who actually makes the request. This is very different from how things were done in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The criteria as decided by Cabinet takes into account environmental considerations so that the least possible impact on the environment will result. The criteria clearly specify that irrigated arable land and areas which are scheduled should not be released for development.

I urge people to confirm that these are, in fact, very limited extensions by viewing the maps, which are available on the website and at Mepa offices, as well as from local council offices. In fact, only an estimated 10 per cent of the area for which requests were made will actually be released for development.

I also urge people to read the criteria document that is also readily available. This document demonstrates the balance that the government is trying to achieve between social considerations, addressing injustices and environmental protection.

Instead of commenting on the criteria, the opposition has adopted the strategy of inventing stories. The opposition is claiming that Minister Ninu Zammit and Birkirkara mayor Dr Beppe Fenech Adami both stand to gain because undeveloped land which they own is to be included within development boundaries. In both instances, these are fabrications which have been categorically denied by the people concerned. It is sad to see the opposition yet again resorting to misinformation to gain cheap political points, thus making a sensitive process all the more difficult for all concerned.

The purpose of the public consultation process launched by Mepa is to receive feedback so that, where necessary, changes will be made.

I will not comment on requests or issues relating to specific sites but I will certainly defend the criteria as decided by Cabinet and the process that has been adopted.

George Pullicino is Rural Affairs and Environment Minister