Planning policy should ensure that it is not too easy to build a new school "in the first field that we find," MP Marlene Farrugia said in a meeting of the Environment and Development Planning Committee which she chairs.

The committee is discussing the proposed Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), and Din l-Art Ħelwa council member Petra Caruana Dingli - a former director of MEPA's environmental protection directorate - was highlighting the organisation's concerns.

As she went over DLĦ's suggestions, she said that she was not convinced that schools were needed in rural areas, and suggested amendments to rule such developments out in principles. At the same time, she also highlighted that provisions favouring increasing the supply of affordable social housing should clearly state that such housing would not

But it was the former suggestion which gained the most attention, with the controversy surrounding plans to build an "American University of Malta" in rural land in the Żonqor area of Marsascala still raging.

However, government MP Deborah Schembri questioned whether this would mean that needed schools would not be built, leading Dr Caruana Dingli to point out that there were already provisions for an exception to the rule based on overriding national importance.

But Dr Caruana Dingli's suggestion found a sympathetic ear in Dr Farrugia, who noted that the footprint of existing schools could be better utilised, including by building upwards where this made sense. She added that if the government engaged into more long-term planning, there should be no need to build new schools outside of the development zone.

"We shouldn't make it so easy to place a school in the first field that we find," the MP maintained.

Dr Schembri then stressed that one must ensure that the authorities' hands are not tied, but Dr Farrugia noted that the opposite also applied. She also noted that the 2006 rationalisation exercise had opened up large areas of land to development, and that the government had a lot of property in such areas that could be used if needed. 

This prompted a reaction from Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Michael Falzon, who said that Dr Farrugia was mistaken: the rationalisation exercise, he said, largely saw government-owned land protected while the land owned by private individuals - "and I will stop  there," he remarked - was opened up to development.

NGOs' contribution to debate sparks argument between government MPs

An argument of sorts broke out between Dr Schembri and Dr Farrugia as the sitting neared its end, after the former argued that having civil society provide feedback at this stage - when a consultation period had been opened earlier - was an "ugly precedent," while the latter said that it was a "beautiful precedent," as democracy widened.

On her part, Dr Caruana Dingli pointed out that the suggestions made by DLĦ during the consultation phase were completely ignored, while shadow minister for the environment Marthese Portelli hailed environmental NGO's proactive stand. Dr Portelli noted that after being ignored when they made suggestions during the consultation phase, they could either remain idle or persevere.

But Dr Schembri said that she was perplexed at how NGOs sought loopholes in the parliamentary system to address loopholes in planning laws, prompting an incredulous reaction from Dr Caruana Dingli.

Dr Farrugia, on the other hand, said that there was no loophole, and that she chose to provide them with the opportunity as she felt that they clearly had little chance to make themselves heard during the consultation phase.

She noted that representatives of these NGOs voluntarily - "in contrast to those who enrich themselves without benefiting the country" - came forward to contribute, and expressed her disappointment that a member of the same political movement described this as an ugly precedent.

"It would have been an ugly precedent if we shut them up," she said, before suggesting that Dr Schembri should similarly encourage civil society to speak up in the parliamentary committee she herself chairs.

On his part, Dr Falzon said that he had no issue with NGOs contributing at this stage, but contested arguments that consultation was insufficient. He pointed out that during the consultation phase, NGOs had rejected the concept behind SPED.

But he warned that "this is a government that decides. Whoever does not like it, that is their issue."