Should a previous development existing in a particular place or site be a pretext for that site to remain developed or be re-developed?

That's one of the most significant principles that is held in Malta's planning laws: that if a site is already committed with a development, then it counts as a significant point in favour of any re-development that may be planned.

Even in ODZ land, re-developments are allowed just as long as they maintain the same built footprint of what already exists.

Obviously any application for development is then also judged within the context of things such as local plans and various different design policies - but the fact is, that it is exceedingly rare if not unheard of that a decision is take for site which is committed to development to be changed and somehow returned to the public.

The development on Comino which was approved this week is one such example of it.  Without entering the merits of the development, one of the key points of it was that it maintained largely the same footprint as the hotel complex which already exists on the island.

However it has been argued that the hotel complex which was first built on Comino was built within the context of a very different government policy.  The original Comino Hotel was built in the 1960s on the basis of a deed which was initially granted by the British government and then re-adjusted several times by successive Maltese governments.

The idea back then was to have tourism developments which could enhance Malta's touristic product: this is why we've got several touristic developments quite close to some of Malta's most popular beaches, for example, even if they came at the expense of previously pristine natural environment.

But now Malta's outlook has changed: amid record tourism and record super-charged construction development, there is a renewed sense of priority towards preserving and enhancing the natural environment.

It is, in truth, a multi-faceted debate which can have several implications, including legal ones.

One can refer to Prime Minister Robert Abela's remarks on the Hondoq ir-Rummien case.  There, the local plans had been changed by previous administrations to allow touristic developments, which then paved the way for a massive development application to be filed.

Amidst the clamours for Abela's administration to change the local plans to protect Hondoq from development, the Prime Minister said that doing so would likely prejudice the legal right of the land owners to enjoy their property particularly as the application to develop it remained in limbo.

The application and subsequent appeals were eventually turned down, and only then did the government change the local plans to protect Hondoq ir-Rummien.

Acting on a case where there is already a development in existence - even if, for argument's sake, it was left derelict - is likely to be legally even more complex and will almost certainly have to involve expropriation of the land in question, something which may end up costing a pretty penny.

The lesson this certainly does teach is that what's been done is sometimes very difficult to have undone. This is why it's so important for our authorities to really give due consideration to what they allow to be developed, and where.