Carmel Cacopardo

Way back in 2016, government had carried out an exercise of public consultation relative to the commercialisation of sports facilities. The laudable objective was to create a legal framework which would facilitate initiatives undertaken by sports organisations to be in a position to finance themselves through a better utilization of the properties in their possession.

Creating the legal framework is however not enough. Consequently, we are currently being asked to air our views on another consultation exercise in order to introduce flexibility in land use planning policy intended to facilitate the commercialization of sports facilities. The relative document dated February 2026 seeks “alignment with the commercialisation of sports facilities regulations.”

Most obviously there are difficulties which have been identified, as current planning rules have not been diluted enough (yet) to permit the planned commercialisation.

The parameters defining the objectives of the current consultation exercise speak of safeguards to protect other interests of equal importance. Five specific “interests” are listed, namely, neighbour amenity, cultural heritage, the natural environment, transport and infrastructure. It is interesting to note that agricultural land has not been deemed to be worthy of being protected. This is in line with current practice.

It is too early to discuss how this protection will be forthcoming. However, it is pertinent to state that all these “interests” are already afforded protection under various land use planning policies. Unfortunately, however, these protections have many a time been rendered useless when faced with the ever-accumulating greed, which generally has a higher level of protection.

We have been through it many other times. Slowly, land use planning will continue its current downward slide, as flexibility is transformed into elasticity. This time sports will be the medium to accelerate degradation.

The cherry on the cake, in the consultation document, is relative to how it deals with land outside the development zone. Given that most of the sports facilities are sited outside the development zone (ODZ) this issue is of central importance.

The consultation document first emphasises that “no new land Outside Development Zone (ODZ), and no open spaces within the development zone” shall be allocated for the proposed development resulting from commercialised sports facilities. Then, however, the consultation document proceeds with the identification of the applicable exceptions. The exceptions being “land or space consisting of adjacent or nearby legally established, underutilised, abandoned, or failing sports facilities, owned or entrusted to the sports organisation”.

This is another aspect of Vision 2050 which promotes all sorts of greed at the expense of our quality of life.

Slowly our areas outside the development zone are being nibbled and devoured by the development lobby. Just this week the Planning Authority decided on another contentious case that of Ta’ Durumblat in Mosta. This involves another 40,000 square metres of agricultural land transformed into land to be developed, as a result of the rationalisation of development boundaries decided by parliament way back in 2006.

In the ever-present conflict generated by the development of existing open spaces and agricultural land, the Planning Authority always takes the short-term view. This exercise of commercialisation of sports facilities is no exception. We are presented with another unsustainable proposal which will keep adding to the built footprint of these islands. We cannot afford this latest excuse to develop ODZ land.

Carmel Cacopardo is ADPD-The Green Party’s Deputy Chairperson

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 8 March 2026