• The Church Environment Commission (KA) sadly notes that the proposed Paceville Masterplan seems to imply that the appalling conditions of the locality it is supposedly addressing are standalones and not the various related symptoms of a common cause: unsustainable development. Therefore, one would have imagined that the PA and Government would be wise enough to identify the real cause of the problems, learn from past experiences and ultimately avoid repeating the same mistakes.

    The Masterplan refers to an integrated approach in the whole process. The KA cannot understand how such a concept can be reconciled with a methodology that has failed to acknowledge the importance of actively consulting the residents at the earlier stages of the drafting of the Masterplan. It is obvious that the Masterplan’s target is once again motivated by unbridled development aimed at maximizing economic gain over and above the wellbeing of residents and the population in general. In fact it seems some developers still prefer it to be flexible enough to allow them to build wherever they see an opportunity to do so.

    The plan should therefore be revised, having taken into consideration all the concerns expressed during the consultation process, particularly those coming from members of the communities directly effected by the development.

    The KA feels that the bad reputation Paceville is gaining due to what goes on in a number of establishments, is counterproductive to the high‑quality branding the Masterplan seems to strive for.

    As to land reclamation, the Commission feels that, should this damage the rich marine biodiversity, it is to be ruled out altogether. Moreover, in accordance with a decision taken by Parliament close to six months ago, every effort should be taken to protect the local coast in every aspect for the benefit of present and future generations.

    Of significant relevance to the Paceville Masterplan are three of a number of proposals put forward by the KA during a conference it organized in December of last year, namely:

    • That the authorities carry out a national study on the demand and supply of Maltese properties and the fiscal and economic environment that has a bearing on them. In the context of the Paceville Masterplan, this study assumes a greater importance.
    • That the Government and all authorities should enforce regulations without fear or favour in a just manner with all. The Masterplan is not indispensable for the enforcement of law and order in the locality.
    • That the Government carries out the necessary reforms in how it leases out or disposes of property belonging to the whole nation and to ensure transparency in the granting of environment‑related tenders.

    Moreover, one expects that the developments that will benefit from such Masterplan should contribute to a fund that will upgrade the infrastructure and pay for expropriations that will ultimately benefit such developments.

    The KA sees the drawing up of a Masterplan for the locality as an opportunity to challenge the predominant model of development and wealth that puts profit before any consideration of the common good and the wellbeing of communities and their surroundings. It is an opportunity for a regeneration of Paceville that puts sensitivity to social needs, social justice and environmental responsibility as the foundations of economic development. Will we, once again, miss the opportunity?

     

    Click here to download the Position Paper on The Paceville Masterplan.