Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/722943
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2016 15 all doom and gloom. Tradition- ally, environmental issues were skipped over the years. Priority for the environment was not pro- nounced. But as we became more emancipated, and the quality of life improved, interest in the envi- ronment is now a priority. Today, I would say that the environment is definitely one of the hottest and most spoken-about topics on the political agenda. Now: I want to defend the government a bit… and criticise the Opposition. That's my job as a politician. The Opposi- tion's environmental credentials are not [made of] gold… Sorry to interrupt, but the PN's environmental policies are actual- ly identical to those of the present government. All the examples I mentioned earlier could be applied to the PN as much as Labour… "But the Opposition is criticising us over the environment… even though most of what is happening is its own doing. In 2006/2007 the Nationalist government substan- tially extended the development zones. When you see buildings go- ing up today, it doesn't mean that those permits were issued under this administration. They are the fruit of the ODZ rationalisation. Another thing to keep in mind is that, in 25 years under the Nation- alists, almost a third – more than 30% – of all agricultural land has been included in the development zone. That is also very disturbing. When we come to high-rise: if you see the policy before the reform, there was practically the possibil- ity to apply for a high-rise permit all around the country. That's why it's not all doom and gloom… be- cause one of the things we did is to limit the areas where a person can potentially apply for high-rise to only five or six areas…" On paper, perhaps. But that's not what happened in reality. Mriehel, for instance, was not included in the original high-rise policy docu- ment. It was added after the con- sultation period ended… "I don't think the start-off point should necessarily be that high- rise is taboo in Malta. What is good about our high-rise poli- cies is that: first of all, contrary to before, today you have to have a footprint that is four times larger than what you build. That creates open space, 50% of which must be accessible to the public. The de- velopment must be surrounded by four roads. There has to be enough internal parking… But all these policies were sys- tematically flouted in the Sliema and Mriehel decisions. Mriehel doesn't have sufficient parking, yet the developers still got a permit. In Sliema, the 'four roads' turned out to be three. Not to mention the lack of provisions for an additional 3,500 cars driving into Sliema each day… "I'll come to that later. The most important policy is that the flats themselves have to be larger than normal flats. They cannot be 'ga- bubi', but nice, high-class flats. Secondly, they cannot be more than what would be permitted in the whole area. So the question should be, what would be best for the environment: to have a high- rise building with a footprint four times larger, half of it open to the public… enough parking for eve- ryone… or the whole area built up 12 storeys high, with not a square inch open?" That's not what we're getting, though, is it? I already pointed out that the PA ignored its own policies on parking and accessibil- ity when approving those projects. And besides, why should those two be the only options, anyway? How about the PA refusing permits to protect the quality of life of resi- dents… on the basis that certain areas (Sliema being a classic case in point) are already saturated with development? "Because if a plot of land is not ODZ, and it is owned privately, I don't think it is reasonable to re- ject applications to build. There is no legal justification to stop that development…" All the more reason to rigorously enforce planning policies, then. Yet this is not happening either. Then there is an economic considera- tion. By Herrera's own admission, the flats have to be of a high qual- ity – which also means they will be priced out of reach of any existing local market segment. This creates inflationary pressure on property, which has already gone up by 67% in recent years. Where does this leave first-time buyers? "It is this government's policy, take it or leave it, to be pro-busi- ness. It wants to attract foreign direct investment, to grow the GDP, create employment for eve- rybody, and to improve the stand- ard of living. To do this, we can- not be closed within ourselves. So yes, there have been a number of schemes aimed at attracting for- eigners to live in Malta..." But to what extent are we willing to bend our own planning policies to accommodate these people? On such a small island, does it make sense to prioritise an economic policy that values over-develop- ment more than environmental protection? Herrera however insists that both those objectives can be achieved simultaneously. "When it comes to protecting the natural environment, I am ex- tremely sensitive. Let me tell you what I'm going to do to protect the environment: during these last three months I have been working incessantly to create new natural reserves. I'm setting up a team to declare large tracts of land as 'pub- lic domain'. This way, no govern- ment – including my own – would be tempted to destroy it. In the coming days we will hear of a new, very large national park. So yes: in areas that are ODZ, there you will find me super-protective…" Interview Between fish farm slime and rampant overdevelopment, the environment seems to be under unprecedented levels of attack. Environment Minister JOSE HERRERA defends his government from criticism that it is selling out to corporate interests at every turn m… or slime