MEPA rejects Balzan apartment block application
The board of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) this morning rejected an application for the building of 15 apartments encroaching on a villa neighbourhood in Balzan.
The issue had been the subject of protests from neighbours who argued that there was an error in the local plan which converted an area reserved for villas into one for other terraced houses and apartments.
They have been contesting this development since 2005 and last year 28 families filed a judicial protest asking MEPA to correct the mistake.
The application was for the building of two blocks in St Francis Street, corner with St Gabriel Street.
The board decided that the application would be rejected because of the major impact it would have on the area.
MEPA chairman Austin Walker said the local plan would be re-assessed and any discrepancies would be ironed out.
Neighbours applauded when the 7-1 decision was announced.
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Roger Cauchi Inglott
Jun 27th 2009, 13:57
The time will soon come when contractors will be dropping apartments and replacing them with houses LOL.
Who in his right mind has the courage to build apartments when there are thousands of empty units that will remain empty and hundreds more still being built............
Apartments were an investment once upon a time, but that time is long gone.......
The only option left for contractors is to drop houses or apartments and build more appealing, insulated and eco-friendly houses that will replace others that were built like matchboxes; and were cold in winter and hot in summer.
Mario Scicluna
Jun 27th 2009, 12:22
Sur editur, ipermetili nikkumenta fuq dan l-artiklu. Jiena tal-opinjoni illi dan l-kuntrattur partikolari ghandi jithalla jibni hdejn l-villel. Dan ma jaghmilx sens u ahna qed naslu fi stat fejn bilfors qedin nimxu lejn maisonettes u flats l-ghaliex l-hajja tal-illum saret iebsa fuq l-familji u b'hekk kopja li ha jizzewgu ma ikunux jistaw jaffordjaw djar kbar. Bilkemm jaffordjaw maisonettes.. allura l-ghaliex ma ghadniex intuhom c-cans jazlu fejn jixtiequ u joqghodu f'areas sbieh??
Nirringrazjak,
Mario Scicluna
Mosta
Alex Bugeja
Jun 26th 2009, 10:01
I'snt local plan a law ??? or not ??? On what can contractors relay on now ??? This is just Malta . I cannot imagine what the applicant reactions are . This is just so much. a political country .
Joe Grech
Jun 25th 2009, 22:57
Mr. Walker this is a move in the right direction. BUT YOU - and the Audit Office - NOW NEED TO DO ONE MORE IMPORTANT THING IF YOU WISH TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
It is stated that: '' there was an error in the local plan which converted an area reserved for villas into one for other terraced houses and apartments ''.
You now need to find out how that ''error'' originated, to ferret out whoever made ''the mistake''. The Audit Officer might help you to do that. Personally I do not think it was an error - but something far more significant. Shall we say that somebody at Mepa possibly wanted to do a good turn for some developer or other? This is only theorising mind you...but the way things unfolded and basing our opinion of Mepa on its past scandalous history, this ''error'' does cry out for a serious investigation so that whoever might have abused may be caught and be kicked out of your Authority.
The P.M., as Minister for Mepa may decide to follow this suggestion - but I personally believe he will prefer not to get involved. Hopefully you will reply to this comment.
Joseph E Briffa
Jun 25th 2009, 22:11
I am relieved to see MEPA acting in such a fashion..well done. May I suggest that in cases where a developer submits an application which runs counter to development regulations, his application be turned doen forthwith and the applicant informed within a month and, moreover, the devolper is heavily fined say, a minimum of Eur5 000. The Architect involved be given a warning that if he/she files a similar application in future he/she would risk losing his warrant. If he/she submits a similar application, then he/she should lose his/her warrant. I believe this procedure is practised in Denmark and, if introduced in Malta, would be a great deterrent besides a great time-saver for the MEPA officials. If the wording of the MEPA Act is couched in such terms that it leaves a lot of things at the discretion of MEPA, then it's about time that the PM ensures that the net is tightened as much as is humanly possible. I believe that this procedure if adopted would go down well with the general public, drastically reduce the number of applications for development which go against regulations, instil confidence in MEPA and earn Dr Gonzi alot of points., .
Mary Fisher
Jun 25th 2009, 21:46
Yes, well and good, but why do we have to go through the trauma of waiting for the outcome when the real truth is looking us in the face. It is sheer waste of time, money and energy .
However, my compliments to the Balzan people especially those who are directly affected.
D Camilleri
Jun 25th 2009, 16:07
Mepa, you couldnt even arrange a mistake you admitted you made,
you rejected the application because of the major impact. ????
c. camilleri
Jun 25th 2009, 15:59
Well done Mepa. That is how things should have been done long ago.
@ John Borg. I remember time past when before an application for bar or restaurant or any kind of outlet is processed the authorities used to ask for the neighbours concern. These will give the reason for their objection. Being a valid one the application will be rejected. Why is this no longer the case?? Why is it that a residence is turn into bakery, bar, restaurant, small super markets, etc without anyone knows how? It is time to go the good old days and start respecting the residents who demand nothing more than to live in a quite environment of their chose. Before anything is done that change the environment of the place the neighbours should be consulted. This will eliminate a lot of discontent afterwards.
Joe Grima
Jun 25th 2009, 15:53
I would like MEPA tro consider also when giving the go ahead permit for building semi basement garages of houses to consider the pavement infront. All the pedestrian pavements are nowadays for cars and not for the use of the pedestrians themselves. All are done in such a way that one feels sick going up and down while walking on these so called pavements. As I said no one takes any notice of the safety of the pedestrians but the well being of the owners cars.
John Borg
Jun 25th 2009, 13:41
That's what we want from MEPA, decisions which protect the rights of families wherever that may be! Everybody is fed up with what is going on. MEPA must also refuse all those applications for bars and places of entertainment which are sprouting up everywhere in towns and villages under the excuse that they are town centres with no consideration for the unbearable noise pollution at all hours. Pity the poor people who have to suffer these disturbances every night. Or because these people don't live in villas and bungalows their rights are not protected?? or is it because the applicants are in some way powerful? Come on MEPA show your teeth and give our towns and villages back to the people and leave such applications for designated tourist areas.
P.CASSAR
Jun 25th 2009, 13:24
THE VERY SAME AREA WHERE THIS PERMIT WAS STOPPED IS FULL OF TOWER CRANES AND OTHER EQUIPEMENT. SEVERAL HOUSES, VILLAS AND GARDENS ARE GOING DOWN TO BE REPLACED BY HIGHER APPARTENENTS!!!! WHERE IS MEPA AMD MORE SO WHERE IS THE LOCAL COUNCIL OR THESE ARE OK.????
Joseph Zammit
Jun 25th 2009, 13:12
Hi MEPA. What about that monstosity of a skyscraper earmarked for Qawra? Does this application still stand?
A Calleja
Jun 25th 2009, 13:04
... and the Attard by-pass some prominent people are proposing with the only scope of destroying the last bit of green area between Zebbug and Attard.
r ferriggi
Jun 25th 2009, 12:30
you have to appluade a common-sense decision.
what we all ( apart from a few conscience-less contractors) would like to see is :
1. more of such decisions (where they apply)
2. the stop ( once and for all) of very strange decisions (bidnija style)
3. complete stop in ODZs
4. complete stop to particular appeasement ( riviera hotel style)
5. complete overhaul of the case officer system ( everybody knows the business))
M Xuereb
Jun 25th 2009, 11:58
Prosit! We're finally starting to see sense.
Jeremy J Camilleri
Jun 25th 2009, 11:55
Great...our villas are safe, whilst are valleys are not.
Joe Morana
Jun 25th 2009, 11:53
Good news. Some good sense seems to be getting through. Hope the same will apply fro Sliema
M. Cilia
Jun 25th 2009, 11:32
Well done to the neighbours of the proposed development for pressing with MEPA to reject the application. Neighbours of other similar developments should follow.
Adrian Borg cardona
Jun 25th 2009, 11:30
I am one of the neighbours of the proposed development and am feeling so very happy. This decision is such a relief for all the neighbours who, each and every one of them, took an interest and opposed this development. Congrats to all and especially to Kenneth Bartolo who worked so hard. Thanks also to our Mayor Dr. John Zammit Montebello and Dr. Trevor Degiorgio. On another level, I cannot understand why neighbours of a planned project have to go through all this, wasting time and resources. The system needs a huge reform. It is so weighted in favour of developers. This is third time we had to fight off unwanted development in our area. Are we going to go on like this? MePA needs to abide scrupulously to its own policies and not allow any deviations, no matter how persistent the architects are.
Ludwig N. Cassar
Jun 25th 2009, 11:21
Good. Hope this is the first of a number of decisions which MEPA has to take to bring back some sanity, reputation and trust from the general public. Others demanding immediate action are the Bidnija villa for Dr Scerri, the flats in the Mosta valley and the disco at Mistra. Go for it MEPA.