When the right to property violates the fundamental rights of residents

The Sliema Residents Association (SRA) refers to the contribution entitled 'Undermining the right to property' by Michael Falzon the association's proposals regarding Villa Bonici (The Sunday Times, March 7).

Essentially, Mr Falzon echoes Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco's reply and Alfred Gera de Petri's reaction published in The Times and elsewhere, to SRA's proposals regarding Villa Bonici and its gardens.

Nevertheless, SRA is pleased to note that Mr Falzon went an important step further when he wrote that "one's rights cannot be enjoyed at the expense of the enjoyment of another's rights", and "the right (of the property owner) is also subject to the interest of the community, of the common good".

He further reinforced this argument, stating that "every building permit should therefore be a necessary limitation on the right to the enjoyment of one's own property: a limitation in the interests of the common good".

Mr Falzon has reiterated the reasons why SRA is proposing alternatives against the type of development projected for Villa Bonici and its gardens by its present owners.

The SRA is fully aware that owners do have rights and these are also protected by the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, SRA asserts that in a developed society, residents have fundamental rights too, and are entitled to a healthy and sustainable living environment.

Therefore, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority's role is to ensure that 'owners as developers' rights' do not override residents' fundamental rights in the 'public interest'.

SRA has no reservations with the fundamental right of owners for adequate compensation. However, SRA again questions Mepa on why and how, between 2000 and 2006, the Villa Bonici status changed from an Urban Conservation Area status (limited building and highly regulated) to the present state of 'no specified building height' without the necessary public consultation. Regrettably, to date, no reply has been forthcoming, though a meeting appointment between Mepa and SRA is being set for the coming days.

SRA is confident that Mr Falzon, an architect himself, is well read on Mepa's North Harbours Local Plan (NHLP) of 2006, which makes very pertinent references to Sliema as an over-developed location, and can confirm that this document states, in no uncertain terms, that Sliema is suffering from limited recreational space, infiltration of traffic, noise and other effects resulting from tourism development, commercial intensification and high housing densities.

No doubt that Mr Falzon and others are aware that the NHLP also states Sliema is considered as "an area which cannot comfortably accommodate further development" and that in the congested areas of Sliema, the emphasis will be on new housing through rehabilitation and selective redevelopment rather than through extensive building, height relaxation or re-designation of open space.

It further advises that in localities such as Sliema, more development would further increase noise, traffic, overshadowing, and sense of enclosure and degradation of the public realm.

SRA reiterates that its concerns and proposals regarding the Villa Bonici area were submitted in the 'public interest', within the holistic context of the continued unsustainable overdevelopment of Sliema, which is detrimental to residents' health and quality of life.