Saturday, 19th July 2008 - 16:34CET
Villa Bologna given Grade 1 protection
The area behind Villa Bologna in Attard, which might still be developed.
Villa Bologna in Attard has been scheduled as a Grade 1 national monument, the environment group Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) said.
"FAA joins the owners of Villa Bologna in welcoming the news that MEPA has scheduled this property as a Grade 1 National Monument, helping to preserve it for posterity," the group said.
It added, however, that it was still concerned that the area behind Villa Bologna, known as Ta’ Fġieni, might be given up for development.
"MEPA’s Local Plan states that because Attard has a shortage of recreational areas, its open spaces are to be protected. However, changes to the building scheme were passed to render this site developable in spite of a residents’ petition to the contrary.," FAA said.
The issuing of permits to develop Ta’ Fġieni square will not only rob residents of their light, air and recreational space, it will also have a great negative impact on the national monument of Villa Bologna, robbing it of a buffer zone and eroding much of what has been achieved by the scheduling," FAA said.
Villa Bologna was built in 1745 by Fabrizio Grech for his daughter Maria Teresa to Nicolas Perdicomati Bologna, second Count della Catena.
In the 1930s Lady Strickland created a new garden behind the villa, including a spectacular fountain, a sunken pond and vine covered pergolas leading through the new orange groves where grapefruit, tangerines, oranges and lemons all flourish.
Lord Strickland, a former Prime Minister of Malta, died in Villa Bologna in 1940.
RSS
Comments
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080729/local/owners-request-revocation-of-scheduling-of-land-at-villa-bologna/
This is one of many reasons why property owners' rights need to be upheld.
They bought houses and flats in front of a piece of land that they knew was private.
They keep believing that they have some God-given right to tell the owner of the land in front of them what to do with his property.
They know that development zones change all the time as they changed precisely when they built on previously virgin land.
Now they expect the green area they ruined to enjoy a green area in front!
They say they paid a higher price for their property as they thought they would enjoy views over a green area.
But they should have known green areas are never set in stone and PROOF of this are THEIR OWN houses and flats that they built on a previously green area.
Anyone of average intelligence in Malta can tell them they XTRAW IL-HUT FIL-BAHAR.
Anyone can tell them that no one has rights over other people's land.
Everyone in Attard keeps talking about them. Almost everyone in Attard used to have a green area in front that was then given up for development.
Now FAA keeps defending these privileged people's egoism.
Incredible.
@ Mrs Astrid Vella:
If someone is getting hysterical here, it's FAA that keeps defending people who, according to Mrs Astrid Vella herself, built on "virgin land" but who now expect a neighbouring private landowner to supply them with free open views and a free car park to boot!
What Mrs Astrid Vella keeps referring to as 'Ta' Fgieni square' is nothing of the sort but a PRIVATE piece of land in the development zone.
In fact, according to Mrs Astrid Vella herself, Attard Local Council were waiting for the government to "requisition" the land. Which is proof that it's PRIVATE land as the government cannot "requisition" its own property.
And there is no way that PRIVATE land can "eventually become public land" except with the express consent, meaning a public contract or will, of its owner or expropriation by the government.
What Mrs Astrid Vella is doing here is defending the EGOISTIC and unbelievable effrontery of the neighbours neighbours who believe they are so privileged as to have a right to enjoy OTHERS' property, including views and even a car park on OTHERS' property while everybody else in Malta lives with buildings in front.
.
@ Camenzuli: you are so frantic to stamp out any democratic debate that you are becoming hysterical. Of course no one is suggesting that private property rights be violated. In fact until last year, when residents asked why work had not started on the open area, Local Council officials were replying that they were waiting for central government to requisition the land, subject to compensation of course.
You are both deliberately misleading readers by avoiding the subject of the temporary clause in the contract of purchase of the Ta’ Fgieni site that stipulated that it would eventually become public land. As if it would have been sold for only Lm2,000 if it were in perpetuity! Who are you trying to kid! Mop up your crocodile tears Delceppo and Camenzuli, we know who’s being had here and it’s not the poor martyr developers.
Mrs Astrid Vella:
This is again a case of FAA trampling on PRIVATE property rights that EVERY private landowner enjoys according to our Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights which is part of our laws.
No private land can devolve to public use, as you suggest without the express consent of the owner or without it being expropriated by the government and fully compensated. The owner in this case is in no way consenting to his private land devolving to public use - ie a car park as his neighbours ILLEGALLY expect.
The neighbours from whose property this photo was taken clearly show that this is an EGOISTIC quest to stop someone from getting the same permits they themselves obtained at least ten years ago. And it is obvious that the neighbours SIMPLY don't want their views blocked.
Their irritation is understandable since they have been enjoying lovely views at this private owners' leisure for so long. But irritation is NO RIGHT to stop others from enjoying their property as is their fundamental right, which includes building on their property after obtaining the necessary permits from the appropriate authority ie MEPA and NOT the neighbours!
In the Ta’ Fgieni case, the required public consultation was not done properly, certainly not in the spirit of the Directive, a fact which begs a multitude of worrying questions.
The residents have certainly not imposed their enjoyment of the space “at the expense of the neighbour”, as he knew what he was going into when he signed a contract stipulating that the area would devolve to public use. He took a gamble, possibly knowing something that others did not know, as MEPA’s issuing of Attard maps which contradict Attard policies seems highly questionable.
Now that the gamble is being challenged, every attempt is being made to silence objectors which shows who is wrong. No, Mr. Camenzuli, gone are the days when the developer can ride roughshod over submissive residents who “should be the last to speak”.
@ Victor Vella: very well said!
How can these Attard residents expect to be so privileged as to determine whether a private neighbour can build or not?
They should be the last to speak as they obviously have a huge conflict of interest in keeping the views they have (freely) enjoyed thus far (at the expense of their neighbour).
They expect all Malta to support them in their quest to have privileges no one has ie to have an (unbought) say on others' private property.
They should just learn to live like all of us - with neighbours in front of them!
He is also not mentioning that the neighbours submitted a petition to MEPA to make sure that this land retained its no-development status, and this petition was somehow overlooked by MEPA when it changed the Local Plans. It is simply outrageous that these new plans contradict all MEPA’s policies for the well-being of Attard residents.
The neighbours are not claiming rights over the land, but since many paid extra to buy their properties after being assured by BOTH the Local Council and MEPA officials that it would remain unbuilt, they certainly have a right to expect that such assurances would be honoured.
There are many facts about this case that are highly questionable, but one thing is certain, residents have rights too! MEPA has done a great job on scheduling Villa Bologna, we now wait for it to do what is right for Ta’ Fgieni.
the area is a dump because somehow or another the land ended up as private land..this was ment to be a public open space for all of us to enjoy. This land doesn't even have a boundary wall as stipulated by law!...and no enforcment was made...just look who is the owner, check his family tree, check what and where they work and i'm afraid you'll understand everything....
The issue was never Villa Bologna. Its owners never intended to build. Thus the scheduling just enforces their already declared intention.
Regarding the Ta' Fgieni dump (in photo) that FAA insists should not be built, the photo itself shows that people living in front (wherefrom photo was taken) have every interest not to have their views blocked. They are even asking for the land to be turned into a car park for them!
But this is PRIVATE land and its owner, as any private land owner, has EVERY RIGHT to ask for development permits as his neighbours GOT in the 1990s. The photo itself makes it abundantly clear that this land is already surrounded by development and its private owner cannot be made to give a view/parking service to his neighbours (who built on a green area a decade or so ago).
It is evident as well from the photo that the zone does not lack open spaces, as can be seen further away from Villa Bologna.
This campaign is a clear infringement of private property rights by egoistic neighbours who have no claim at all over this land which is PRIVATE and ALREADY in the development zone LIKE THEIRS.
I am not saying that it should be built up -- far from it -- but that it could do with some tending and cleaning up, and perhaps the planting of a few trees.
With the god of money high on the agenda, I am sure that somebody would find a way through to develop this land coming up with some sort of blessing from high above.
I certainly hope not as Malta needs people that can be trusted to sit and rule in high places.
Hand me that banana, please!