Leo Brincat’s opinion piece on the Pender Place project (TMID, 17 April) is reminiscent of Labour’s opportunism.

Mr Brincat conveniently fails to mention Labour’s plans for the area in the not-so distant past. Your esteemed readers should be reminded that less than 10 years ago, when Mr Brincat was Finance Minister in 1998, Labour proposed a 65-storey high-rise development in the area. Moreover, the government-owned Telemalta wanted to demolish Mercury House, which incidentally then already enjoyed a first-grade scheduling level due to its historical and architectural importance.

I investigated thoroughly the newspapers of the time but there was nothing written by Leo Brincat. The facts on the present development proposal of Pender Place are decisively different from the 1998 proposal. Today’s maximum height is of 23 storeys and the proposal fully respects the present scheduled status of Mercury House.

With regards to insensitivity mentioned by Mr Brincat, may I remind him that not only did MEPA consult with various stakeholders but also upheld recommendations which resulted into two important amendments to the original development brief. The final brief allows for less parking spaces and the design has been amended so that the existing villa residences will be neighboured by new villas. All this was done to lessen the impact.

Mr Brincat, like other Labour spokesmen before him, fails to state his party’s stand on over-development and high-rise buildings. What are Labour’s proposals on over-development? May I remind Mr Brincat that it was a PN administration which put in place policies and institutions to regulate development. For the first time in decades, Malta’s development zones are clearly defined, the country is regulated by approved local plans and long gone are the days when agricultural land turned into developable land overnight.

I also ask Mr Brincat what Labour’s stand on high-rise development is. The MLP policy document on environment, approved and published in January 2006, clearly states that “due to Malta’s limited area, the country is facing considerable limitations, especially in building styles; hence we need to think on having vertical buildings in appropriate and purposely indicated areas (clause 6.8).”

Given this unequivocal stand, why does Labour seem to be criticising any development proposal that includes a high-rise aspect? Where are the “purposely indicated areas” the MLP document refers to? Any sensible person would assume the above-mentioned area definitely qualifies as an indicated area for a 23-storey building once his government had proposed a 65-storey tower for the same area.

Ray Bezzina

Rural Affairs and the Environment Ministry

Valletta