Villa Bologna needs buffer zone, FAA insists

M Camenzuli

Jul 29th 2008, 15:42

For the latest in this issue, see:

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.

M Camenzuli

Jul 26th 2008, 19:44

@Ms Elizabeth Turner:

When you buy a piece of land, its description in the contract includes the state of development at time of sale. It's not normative (saying what should be done in future) but descriptive (saying what is at the time), like the names of (usally three) adjacent landowners/streetnames. This is done to clearly identify the land.

'Art-mhux-fabbrikabbli', as they describe every piece of land that is not in the building scheme at time of contract, is not the same as 'Art-li-qatt-ma-tista-tkun-fabbrikabbli'. Actually, no owner can give away his future rights; it is illegal to do so.

The neighbours (or previous-owners) who are set to lose their views if this land is developed (which is why all the fuss, of course) built on former green-areas. Their land was also previously described as 'Art-mhux-fabbrikabbli' before the scheme changed in the 1970s and again in the 1980s.

When building schemes change, as they repeatedly done all over Attard for the last four decades, the description of the land is then updated in the next contract, with a MEPA plan attached, as are the names of adjacent owners/streetnames if they change.

That's all Mrs Turner. You can check this with any notary.

Elizabeth Turner

Jul 26th 2008, 17:24

Camenzuli is deliberately misleading the public by claiming that the owner of the disputed land at ta 'Fgieni has equal rights to the neighbouring residents. This is untrue because whereas the surrounding residents bought their plots at market price for building land, the owner of the land in question bought this area very cheaply as 'art m'hux fabrikabili' and therefore at a very cheap price, in the 1990's. The Public works Department designated this area as non - building land in the 1970's so that it would eventually be made avaliable for some public purpose such as garden, parking etc.

George R. Bryant

Jul 25th 2008, 11:41

On two occasions the owner of the land in question applied for planning controls to change the land into residential development. In both instances Mepa refused the planning controls on the grounds that it would jeopardize future Local Plans.

Joseph Attard

Jul 23rd 2008, 14:00

Is it really a buffer zone Villa Bologna needs? Or is it some sense in the neighbours that should accept that other owners who have neighbouring land have every right to build if they get permits from MEPA? Villa Bologna was never to be built as the owners have always declared they had no intention to do so. We should rather say that this Villa Bologna brouhaha is all just an excuse for the neighbours to keep unjustly enjoying views over their neighbour's private land.

Sephora Degabriele

Jul 22nd 2008, 11:59

It's incredible how these people who live in Fgieni think.

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.

Mark Bonello

Jul 22nd 2008, 08:59

It is all very well that these environmental lobbyists work so very hard, and lose sleep worrying about threats of development on private property, which, according to them, should be a buffer zone.
But I feel they should also worry about creating an environmental trust fund to buy the relative land according to market prices, hence no more sleepless nights for everyone involved and Malta will be a much happier place to live in.

M Camenzuli

Jul 21st 2008, 22:48

Mrs Astrid Vella keeps defending people who, according to Mrs Vella herself, built on "virgin land" in Ta' Fgieni, Attard, 10-15 years ago but who now expect a neighbouring private landowner no to build as they did and 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.

Ta' Fgieni area is surrounded by public open spaces going as far out to San Anton.

But the people living here have this unbelievable effrontery believing 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.

Mrs Astrid Vella has no idea at all of (others') PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Any landowner has every right to ask for and get building permits from the competent authority (which is MEPA and evidently not the neighbours who have a huge conflict of interest in this case).

This quest is sheer EGOISM under the veneer of Mrs Astrid Vella' supposed environmentalism.

.