Undermining fundamental rights

The Sliema Residents Association (SRA) refers to Mario de Marco's reply to its press statement and Alfred Gera de Petri's public reaction to its proposals regarding Villa Bonici and its gardens (Rights At Law Over Private Property, March 1).

Noting the Parliamentary Secretary's concern of the rights of private property, the SRA points to the fact that practically in every town and village, some houses and gardens which are privately owned are designated as protected enclaves. So what is so different about Sliema?

SRA suggests that the Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism and the Environment should not limit himself to the rights of private property owners, without an attempt to seek an equitable and sustainable solution that satisfies both the owners and the local community.

SRA is confident that, as Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Mepa, Dr de Marco would be aware that Mepa has long been conscious of Sliema's over-development problems and that years ago recommended caution to more development of apartment blocks in Sliema, let alone mega-projects such as the one proposed for Villa Bonici by its present owners, at a time when Sliema is far more over-developed than it was years ago.

The SRA fully supports Mr Gera De Petri's comments that "owners do have rights and that these are also protected by the Constitution and the European Court". However, SRA asserts that "residents have fundamental rights too" and Mepa's role as a public environment protection and planning authority is to ensure that owners' rights are exercised in the "public interest" and, therefore, that owners' rights to develop their property should not override the fundamental rights of residents to a healthy and sustainable living environment.

SRA also questions why an outstanding old house like Villa Bonici has not been scheduled yet. Why were Villa Bonici's gardens removed from the Sliema Urban Conservation Area in the 2006 Local Plans (along with other areas earmarked by speculators). Why has Mepa not designated any protected green enclaves in Sliema, as the Villa Bonici gardens should be. Has Sliema been singled out to be sold off to speculators?

SRA is confident that both Dr de Marco and Mr Gera de Petri appreciate that the differences in Mepa's strategic height limitations (as codified in the Local Plans) are not to be regarded as discriminatory, but are necessary for a healthy and sustainable town environment. Similar principles apply to the restrictions on scheduled property, owners of which face a financial cost or loss due to Mepa's regulations as the law contemplates different planning policies, distinguishing even between one site and the next, "in the public interest".

Referring to the issues of expropriation and right of compensation to be paid to property owners against its market value as mentioned by Mr Gera De Petri, the SRA again has no reservations over this fundamental right. However, in view of the fact that between 2000 and 2006 the Villa Bonici site was changed from a UCA status (i.e. limited building and highly regulated) to the present state of "no specified building height" without the necessary public consultation, SRA questions which market price will be paid from the taxpayers' pocket. SRA has publicly questioned Mepa why and how this change in site status came to be but to date no reply has been forthcoming.

SRA reiterates that its concerns and proposals regarding the Villa Bonici area were submitted within the holistic context of continued unsustainable overdevelopment of Sliema that adversely affects residents' health and quality of life and therefore in the "public interest".

SRA's assertions are based on Mepa's own North Harbours Local Plan 2006, the Structure Plan and Air Quality monitoring data, and the Transport Authority's professional traffic flow/management reports. Therefore, SRA has not acted out of "unbridled enthusiasm" nor has the "sheer cheek" as suggested by Mr Gera De Petri.

While acknowledging that there may be significant legal and financial challenges, as described in Dr de Marco's press communication, SRA strongly feels that such challenges should not override the "public interest" of Sliema residents' right for environmental and planning control to be properly exercised.

The SRA is dismayed that, separately and collectively, OPM, Mepa and other "quangos" (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) seem to resist decisive action and pass the buck around thereby abandoning Sliema and its residents to a sad fate.