Sunday, 18th May 2008
Anger as area in Attard is earmarked for development
Mepa denies area was earmarked as open space
The development will take place adjacent to the 18th century Villa Bologna. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi
Residents of Attard yesterday gathered en masse to protest against an area next to the 18th century Villa Bologna which has been earmarked for development into a block of flats.
The residents are appealing to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to revise the local plan and declare the area a non-development zone.
Later in the afternoon the authority said it would evaluate all development planning applications in accordance with established plans and policies, adding that local plans were approved policy documents that could be revised after two years.
Astrid Vella from Flimkien Għall-Ambjent Ahjar, stressed that until the last revision of the local plan in 2006, the area known as Ta' Fġieni, was earmarked as a public open space. Residents were told that it would eventually be landscaped.
However, the local plan was revised last year and the area was declared a development zone.
"This was not at all clear in the public consultation," Ms Vella told a news conference. However, Mepa yesterday denied that the land in question was ever earmarked as a green area or a public open space, saying that the draft local plan always showed that the area was earmarked for development.
Mepa said it never received any objections from Attard residents or the local councils during the public consultation period or afterwards. But in a counter statement, Ms Vella said that two Mepa designs had depicted the area as 'a widening of the road and a car park' while another proposes it as a 'green area'.
She said the local council had repeatedly assured residents that site would be landscaped as a public or a recreational area and residents had made clear to both the authority and the local council their wish to have an open area.
Nationalist MPs David Agius and Charlo Bonnici as well as local councillors from all three parties on Attard's council joined forces with the 50-odd residents in the mid-morning protest in front of the land.
Also present were Alternattiva Demokratika spokesman on sustainable development Carmel Cacopardo and former Attard mayor and historian Henry Frendo.
Attard mayor Norbert Pace was not seen at the protest and he could not be contacted for comment.
RSS
Comments
It is clear that this piece of land is not and was never “public” open space, as you call it. It is private land owned by private owners and proof of this is in the news item you quote which says that it it was sold. Who buys land? Private owners.
The clause “art m’hix fabbrikabbli” is a description of the land at the time of the sale which one puts in the deed of sale (or inheritance). It is no veto on future development. Whether a piece of land can be developed or not in future is decided by the competent authorities (Mepa) and not by the seller and buyer in a deed of sale. If your claim were to be accepted, then all one has to do to build anywhere is to insert the clause “art fabbrikabbli” in a deed of sale!
You are obviously very angry at the fact that you bought land at a price based on the erroneous premise that the land in front of it will always be a green area. But green areas are decided upon by Mepa and not by the owners from whom you bought your land. You can see proof of this fact all around you in Attard most of which was a green area until the early 1970s.
Unfortunately for you, what you bought were not ‘unencumbrable views’ but “hut fil-bahar”.
what is going on in Attard is happening all over the Country. We will hear about other environmental atrocities coming from around 400 approved applications that mepa issued before the general election. We have to have the courage to fight to stop this atrocities. The prime minister responsible for mepa has to investigate this permit for development in Attard and others and even what is going on in the Attard local council. The mayor is ignoring the fact that he is the mayor of all Attard's residences and he is there for their common good. So why is he not taking an active part to save this open space? It doesn't make sense!!
When we built our house around 25yrs ago the piece of land in question has been clearly identified as a public open space, thus this was reflected in the price our land was bought. Quoting the Independent and i can confirm this is correct,
"In 1992 the site was sold. The contract, which is available in the Land Registry to anyone who wishes to see it, makes interesting and disturbing reading. Amazingly, it shows that the land in question was sold for only Lm1,000 due to the fact that the purchaser had convinced the vendor that he only wanted it as an orange orchard until it was landscaped as a pjazza. In order to safeguard the site’s no-development status, the vendor insisted on the inclusion of the clause “art m’hix fabbrikabili” to veto any future building."
So this is what all the fuss is about! We NEVER complained about the other adjacent building that were built around 5-7 years ago since they were built on land for development.
I hope you understand the whole argument.
This is clearly a case of a piece of land that can in no way be described as a 'green area' (it is very clear that it's surrounded by other buildings). It is also clear that this land is privately owned and thus can be built by its owners if the necessary permits are issued by Mepa as they were issued before when the residents built years ago.
The neighbours have no right to stop someone from doing what they did 10 or 20 years ago. It's rich, if not worse, for the neighbours to expect the owner of this piece of land to supply them with a car park rather than exercise his right to build as his neighbours did in the past.