Last week, I wrote about the need to rethink global policies in light of accelerating climate change. This week, while driving past the FSWS on Cannon Road in Santa Venera, I noticed several parking spaces had been taken over by a construction site. These spaces were lost after a boundary wall was built, intruding into the middle of the white parking bays. The area is already busy with offices and the adjacent Central Business District, so parking is limited.
At times, we drive past different areas and do not realise changes in the area’s topography. However, I publicly asked why several parking spaces might now be missing due to this boundary wall. What I did not notice was a massive pile of construction rubble sitting behind it. The rubble, or construction waste, has been covered with green mesh all along, the same kind we used to cover our ceilings in summer to protect them from excessive heat. Someone brought this to my attention. Driving towards the Santa Venera tunnels, it is clearly visible. It is worth mentioning because people are asking why this area is changing and why we, who work in the area, including the residents, have to endure this debris pollution. These examples show how small changes can accumulate and why proportionality must guide our assessment of development across different localities.
Surely, I welcome the introduction of protection for Wied iż-Żrinġ and other areas, inter alia, the protection of open spaces that were turned into green spaces and are within the development zone. However, we cannot use these examples as a false equivalence to set aside other narratives for decisions related to excessive development. We need to pay attention to how we frame our narratives. This is not 2015 or 2020 anymore; we are now in 2026, with people demanding different priorities, including protecting the environment and revisiting how we plan and do things. I understand that decisions based on the 2006 rationalisation need to be made, and that we cannot discriminate against those whose land is included in the development zone. However, we need to distinguish between the planning phase and the within-development scheme. The world changed, and so did the way we must do things. The year 2006 is two decades ago. Frankly, the new voters and the electorate hardly remember those years. Those who voted for the first time in this election were not even born when the decision was taken.
My point is simple: proportionality must guide the upcoming applications. By proportionality, I mean practical planning considerations such as height limitations, buffer zones, adequate green lungs, and density thresholds that respect the surrounding communities. In the Swatar development up for a decision next week, proportionality must be applied. I am not saying the development should not be carried out, because that land belongs to private operators and it was the Nationalist Party’s mistake to include it in the development scheme in 2006. Yes, it was a serious mistake, and regardless of what they say or how they try to reshape the narrative, the mistake was theirs. What the Planning Authority can do is apply proportionality to the proposed development. We have spoken a lot about the quality of the local environment as part of the Well-Being Index presented by the party in government, of which I am a member. The quality of the local environment must consider excessive development and the need for adequate green space to provide breathing room in an already highly urbanised area, with densely-populated Msida across the Swatar valley. Therefore, I urge the Planning Authority to apply proportionality when deciding on this application.
Indeed, I registered to attend the hearing and to join the Executive Council web meeting scheduled for 14 July. My point in being present is to honour the promise I made to residents to oversee the planning application and to see what the decision will be. Also, we cannot afford to have only MPs from the other side of the bench articulating a different narrative and shifting blame to the current government, as if it were not their fault that the valley will be developed. What the Planning Authority can do, and we, as MPs, can signal, is that proportionality must guide development and allow for the stipulated buffer between the building spaces and the already highly urbanised area. We, as MPs, are bringing our constituents’ concerns to the public and the authorities.
As a country, we have not only an environmental responsibility but also a social one, because this is not just about altering the environment once and for all, but also about affecting communities and their surroundings. Personally, I could have stayed mum. However, staying mum will not aid the reorganisation of our country’s planning malaise. And it is not faithful towards my constituents and my ESG values. This is not about criticising the project or the developers, or, for all it matters, the Planning Authority, as by now you know that I try to offer Pareto-optimal solutions and find a trade-off that works for everyone when I write about a topic. As I said in my first statement to the media when I was elected MP, my work is related to Environment, Social and Governance. These themes were easily integrated into the current PL’s manifesto. Certainly, I am writing about this because I have been on the ground in Swatar, – otherwise I would not have received 562 first-count votes in just 21 days – heard residents’ concerns and realised how highly urbanised the area has become. And I heard the silent ones, not those that make the most sound. The valley is the only green lung, providing a bit of sanity. Building it all would be a pity and a mistake.
And as I said in my maiden speech, we borrow the environment from future generations. Hence, we have a responsibility as parents, as policymakers, and as politicians of this country.
