Owners do not have right for views from their properties - developers

Anthony Pace Gouder

Feb 11th 2012, 01:08

Mela dak il-bini massive, 'high density' ta' Flats-fuq-flats ,fuq il-Gerbulin bejn GHajn Zejtuna u t'Tela tal-Mellieha ,minajr ebda gost arkittettoniku u sens urbanistiku, mhux tal-biki. Dak x-ippjanar hu ?

B'dan illum hassar toalment id-dehra Pittoreska li kienet tisraq l-ghajn b'dannu kbir ghat-Turizmu ! Xi stonatura ma dak l-izvillup ta' Santa Maria Estate , bil-mijiet ta' Villa Plots bil-gonna, li kien beda fis-snin sittin ! Illum HNIZRIJIET biss qed naraw.

R. Gauci

Feb 10th 2012, 19:27

But they charge extra for property with views, am I right??

Vincent Scerri

Feb 10th 2012, 13:40

Government should once for all refuse all new building permits submitted . When present availabilities are exhausted then and only then permits should be re-considered.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Feb 10th 2012, 05:38

Caveat emptor! Let the buyer beware!

Buying property "with a view" does not mean that the view will remain unobstructed for ever - not even for many years at the rate Malta is being converted into a jungle of empty, concrete flats.

A Camilleri

Feb 9th 2012, 23:47

So today the MDA believes that there should be no MEPA / Government intervention as "is solely the developers concerned who decide to risk their own money in development projects" How does this tally with a 2009 report "Sandro Chetcuti, president of the GRTU's property development division, believes the government should intervene to boost demand and treat the "disease". http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090426/local/property-deals-down-9.254390

saviour attard

Feb 9th 2012, 22:23

MDA code of ethics says " Members shall act in a manner that shows due respect to the
rights of owners and or occupiers of properties neighbouring sites that they develop or intend to develop. "
What a joke!

James Wightman

Feb 9th 2012, 21:41

Owners don't have the right to views... ergo deveolopers don't have the right to views.... ergo the people they sell them to don't. Do developers ever sell a property having just obstructed a view saying, great views?

C Xuereb

Feb 9th 2012, 20:42

Us residents of Ta Masrija know full well and always knew that the sites in question are within the development zone and will eventually be built up and therefore views may be lost, and WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT!
We DO have a problem however when applications are put forward for massive blocks which exceed the height limitations in the area (currently 3 storeys+ penthouse) and propose 6 storeys or more from the highest street level.
We DO have a problem when this affects our neighbourhood, our village and our quality of life.
WE DO also have a way to describe it....Shameful!

Joseph Hollier

Feb 9th 2012, 19:50

Why do not they risk their money in the manufacturing industry?

P Sammut

Feb 9th 2012, 19:07

For all those who are saying the MDA are right, so in your opinion not everyone has the right for solar water heating and photovoltaic, or after you invest in them someone comes and build 2 storeys above you, leaving you with basically nothing, as you just wasted 10K euros for nothing. Do you think that's fair? You talk like this because no one has built over you yet!

Steve Zammit

Feb 9th 2012, 16:43

You know what I know....

That these same developers have turned Malta in to a concrete jungle....everywhere you look there are match boxes going up and cranes everywhere. What we want is open spaces for our children, the only thing you care about is your pockets....MISKHOM TISTHU....QAZZISTUNA

Mario Mallia

Feb 9th 2012, 16:01

The usual sickening hypocrisy from the MDA. Developers have no scruples in charging premium prices for properties with views. Apparently, the only "right" the MDA recognises is the developers' right to bury every last remaining inch of the country under concrete. Money rules ok!

JC Sullivan

Feb 9th 2012, 15:22

The MDA is right. Those arguing and or fighting against the MDA's way of thinking have something to "protect" or hide.

If anyone REALLY had the land and environment at heart they should have chained themselves to Castille a hell of a long time ago.

renald williams

Feb 9th 2012, 15:19

Some MDA + some MEPA + some MPs + some MEPs =

1. Destruction of countryside, in favour of concrete
2. cities with Less trees, and Less open spaces
3. Damages to one’s home

besides Homes with
• No sun light, on the roof
• Less light, inside
• Damp roofs, and walls
• Problems to dry, washed clothes
• No chance of, installing renewable energy equipement on roof

It is understandable to build an extra floor: but more floors and penthouses on top is not;
with thousands of vacant properties, besides destroying tourism.

Peace and health wishes; to all those who sincerelly really care, about Malta and the Maltese.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Feb 9th 2012, 15:03

@ Andrew Camilleri (9 Feb at 12.08)

How right you are! When a huge commercial garage was illegally built in a residential area of Mellieha was built, MEPA kept postponing a final decision until the regulations were amended to suit the illegal developer and when the approved increased height of the garage door was not high enough to satisfy the developer, MEPA sent a high employee to persuade us to close our eyes to the infringement!

Philip Bartolo

Feb 9th 2012, 14:29

L MDA ahjar tighid x qed jigi propost mil izviluppatur!
Nikwota siltiet min itra ta oggezjoni li ghamel il kunsill lokali tal Mellieha mal MEPA:

L-aspetti li l-aktar li huma ta' thassib ghadhom:

It tnaqqis fl gholi tal bini min 13 il sular ghal 8 sulari, mhux bizzejjed biex inaqqas l-effett fuq id dawl tax xemx

It-tnaqqis fin numru ta units min 463 ghal 252 xorta ghadu meqjus esagerat meta wiehed iqis id daqs tal art in kwistjoni (fuq l aplikazzjoni propost 300 unit )

Huwa ferm dubjuz khemm fir realta l-ispazji proposti li thallew bejn il blokki, ser ikunu accessibli ghal publiku.Din l intenzjoni dehret bic car fil proposta originali bl inkluzjoni tas swimming pools

Ta min ifakkar li fis 17 ta Lulju 2007 , Id direttur ta l ipjanar baghat ittra lir residenti u lill kunsill li f'dan l istadju L-Awtorita taghmilha cara li mhux ihares b'mod pozittiv lejn proposti ta bini gholi f'dan is sit.Id direttorat huwa aktar propens li jzomm ma l-gholi tal bini kif inhu bhalissa stabbilit.

Philip Bartolo
Resident f Ta Masrija

Joseph N. Attard

Feb 9th 2012, 13:57

What an obnoxious way of thinking from the MDA! But it is futile to expect the government and the courts to come to our rescue, the amount of money at stake is enormous.

James Corby

Feb 9th 2012, 13:46

Application of the Floor Area Ratio in the case of the Ta’ Masrija site should be denied on the grounds set out by MEPA in its “Planning Policy on the Use and Applicability of the Floor Area Ratio” (2006).

For instance, among various locations considered inappropriate for the application of FAR, point 7.2.2 includes:

“Settlements on elevated ground and on ridges as tall buildings in these locations would be more pronounced, would have a deleterious impact on the skyline on a national scale and would dominate the whole landscape when viewed from low lying ground”

In describing the appropriate characteristics of a site where the application of FAR would be appropriate, point 7.12.3 refers to “areas generally visually recessed and located on the low lying urban parts of the island”.

But really, this is just to state the obvious. The only people who, in Malta, in 2012, do not seem to be aware of the benefit of low density, environmentally sensitive developments that incorporate a reasonable amount of open space and don’t put undue pressure on the existing infrastructure and services, are developers.

vella m

Feb 9th 2012, 13:43

Lorry Sant was an amateur near to days building contractors, xakalli that's what they are.

Rod Enderby

Feb 9th 2012, 13:35

Nearly sixty thousand vacant properties in the Islands a world financial crisis with everyone having to spend less, and these people still haven't got it and want to carry on building! Let alone the question of ruining the land.

O. Grixti

Feb 9th 2012, 13:29

The problems are
1. Flat Sizes are all the time decreasing, to fit more flats in a plot. This is the issue why we have many flats unsold. People need space where to live. It is better to sell a 2 bedroom flat having a good size rooms, than a 3 BR.
2. Building a block, having penthouses and then the other flats have to use their balcony to dry their cloths, this is an eye sore.
3. Garages under flats are sometime used as shops or stores and this increase parking problems. This should be enforced.
4. If your neighbor builds a block, this can put your roof in shade, it will be useless installing a solar panel. But it is his own airspace. As a counter measure, your neighbor may offer or asked to pay to relocate the panels in a better place.
5. Views – that is a farce if someone believes that, especially country view.

david debattista

Feb 9th 2012, 13:26

To all Maltese and Gozitans The time will come when we will have to take to the streets and fight for our right
to save what little is left both in Malta and Gozo ! We demand and we have the right for a natural environment for us, our children, and those who come after us ! All those who want to make money from property should leave our small islands and go to bigger countries . It is all about MONEY MONEY MONEY .
YOU HAVE ONE PHILOSOPHY I'M OK, F . . K YOU JACK !

joe attard

Feb 9th 2012, 13:11

So the price of a property is calculated also on the location and views it enjoys. Tax is paid on the price of the property. Therefore the owner has paid and been taxed for enjoying the view. What right has the developer to steal what the owner of the view has paid for , having paid all costs and taxes ! If the developer wants something , say the view owned by somebody else , the developer must pay for it compensating the owner behind the development for the loss in the value of the property and the taxes that had been paid.

James Tyrrell

Feb 9th 2012, 12:59

The Malta Developers Association (MDA) as can be seen from the above statement are interested in one thing and one thing only and that is the mass destruction of all open spaces on the islands in order to line their own pockets. These people don't give a damn about the Maltese people because if they did they would be doing more to protect the environment and heritage of the country for generations to come instead of destroying them for profit. There are well over 70,000 empty properties on the islands and yet these idiots continue to build more. Why?

The answer to that is simple, so that the Government can give the impression that they are creating jobs. If the Government cared about the country they would be calling time on this over development but all they really care about is supporting their developer friends who support them during election time. When is someone in Government going to have the balls to say enough is enough? At this rate of going the entire country is going to be covered in concrete soon and then you can kiss goodbye to tourism thanks to the MDA.

Oh and by the way, if anyone reading this is in the market for a new house cut this article out and take it with you to the estate agents. When they try to justify the high price they are asking for the property just show them the article and remind them that they can no longer charge extra for those nice views because according to the MDA they are worthless.

matthew galea

Feb 9th 2012, 12:55

more like Malta Destruction Association.....why can't we enjoy RAW environment? why must we destroy every piece of land? total shame.

Charles Micallef

Feb 9th 2012, 12:21

that is why when the developers sell their property .. they do not charge extra for the view!

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Feb 9th 2012, 12:02

So please MDA, tell your developers not to mention good views when advertising their properties for sale, As you point out, a property owner has no right to a view, as this could vanish once property is acquired. Many thanks MDA for pointing this out.

Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Feb 9th 2012, 12:02

Views have to be protected to stop the excessive development that is ruining Malta. In any event, developers should be required to compensate those whose houses are reduced in value as a result of the greed of the developers.

Tonio Azzopardi

Feb 9th 2012, 12:01

‘’that interferes in the free market by imposing restrictions based on market considerations’’
…interesting mentioning the free market and related considerations.

In Malta the developers are economically very stable and their resilience to the ‘perceived’ market forces is amazing!

Pity that when it comes to pricing banks and sellers fail to refer to the basic rule law of supply and demand.

Mr Andrew Camilleri

Feb 9th 2012, 12:00

Next thing they will be telling us is, that we have no right to natural light and fresh air.

Victor Vella

Feb 9th 2012, 11:55

I am studying to see if I can sue the owners of two adjacent properties as the disregarded my rights to enjoy direct sunlight on my roof.Thanks to MEPA and these scoundrels who also caused damage to my property I can not installl renewable energy equipment on my roof.Both MEPA permits state that the permit is granted save third party rights, What does MEPA exactly mean by this?

Peter Murray

Feb 9th 2012, 11:47

Developers sell properties citing a view as a selling point and often call such views as being unobstructed .However,beware as such views are not actually UNOBSTRUCTABLE!

Mike Abbot

Feb 9th 2012, 11:40

"MEPA is not – and should not – assume the role of a regulator that interferes in the free market by imposing restrictions based on market considerations rather than on planning ones,"

That is EXACTLY what MEPA should do. Left to developers, we would lose every bit of precious land left on this island.

Nathalie Frendo

Feb 9th 2012, 11:35

The less land we have the more buildings keep coming up. What irony

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 9th 2012, 11:29

If a person buys a property in front of an area where there is a height restriction, or in front of an area that cannot be built, and has paid extra for this privilege, then the government SHOULD BE liable for damages the moment he does any changes to those restrictions.

Gianfrancesco Buttigieg

Feb 9th 2012, 11:23

"The rights of developers for development permits should not be subject to considerations of supply and demand in the property market"

Can you get any more arrogant than that?

John Azzopoardi

Feb 9th 2012, 11:18

Aren't views determined by the type of zoning area is involved. What Mepa should have done a long time ago was that monstrous building of appartment blocks or flats should not have been built in areas where only houses existed. That is what citizens have a right to. We all know what is happening in our towns and cities. And what we have are empty flats or unfinished flats in may localities. After all, Malta's needs are not that huge. We are only an island of 450,000 not millions. When you have almost 12,000 appllication for developemnt in one year, that is way too much and it creates excess and bring values down.

vella m

Feb 9th 2012, 11:17

Unbelievable,Building contractors have ruined Malta now its Gozo turn.These greedy contractors are running our country,lets stop them by using our vote wisely.Go green recycle parliament.

Stanley M Debono

Feb 9th 2012, 11:17

It is obvious that MDA does not want to be regulated by any authority. They in fact want to dictate what MEPA can and cannot do. They want to enjoy a free hand and do whatever they please and want.

Well when they risk their money, they are doing so at the expense of all Maltese and Gozitans who's land and countryside they keep ruining. Hall-Saghtrija or Rabat Skyline anyone? These eye sores cannot be forgotten as easily as others. They are massive and contrast too much with the surrounding environment.

Yes, public opinion is that MEPA should consider permits on the basis of demand and supply. Having money is not enough. One must also show some sense.

Setting up schemes like the one set out by the housing authority recently to rent 500 vacant houses, artificially raises prices. If people are not renting, there is a reason. The quality and price of Maltese residences has fallen drastically. And yes, statistics repeatedly have shown that there is a massive oversupply of vacant residences.

The bubble will burst. Too many warnings...when will we listen?

David Smith

Feb 9th 2012, 11:00

What nonsense! What sheer arrogance! Unfortunately, there is no political will to safeguard the interests of the common citizen, lest the construction industry suffers any more downturns. Just wait until there is a court case for civil damages - loss of view, loss of light, loss of privacy, loss of peace and quiet.

Joe A. Borg

Feb 9th 2012, 10:56

"The Malta Developers Association (MDA)insisted today that the planning system cannot be expected to protect views enjoyed by property owners over third party properties."


Simply put, any member of the MDA that has sold property claiming to have a fantastic or unobstructed view has simply committed a FRAUD and the buyers should seek legal remedy.

On the statement ""The rights of developers for development permits should not be subject to considerations of supply and demand in the property market as it is solely the developers concerned who decide to risk their own money in development projects." may I ask MDA then why go to MEPA to seek permission? MEPA is a Planning Authority and has to integrated function to plan the needs of the country and protect the citizen and not the developer.

John F. Galea

Feb 9th 2012, 10:43

Undoubtedly MDA is quite right in insisting that the planning system cannot be expected to protect views enjoyed by property owners over third party properties.
On the other hand developers should be banned in advertising properties with a view, as the view may last once the deed is signed and money transactions are finalised.
Here the banks may come into the picture and delve deeply into the loans given to developers.
It appars that MDA does not want to be regulated by any authority. They want to enjoy a free hand and do whatever they please and want. Developers are pushing the trade to the brink and the bubble may soon burst.
MEPA is the authority to safeguard the environment, town planning and all. Heights limits are to be respected and no string pulling in the issue of said permits.

Victor Rodenas

Feb 9th 2012, 10:37

It`s worse if your neighbour adds another two flats and a penthouse and puts you in the shade.Addio solar heather .

C Pace

Feb 9th 2012, 10:32

Ara veru bla misthija. I was contemplating on buying an apartment with seaviews - will definitely think twice now............. how could MDA say such things of all people! This means that infact seaviews in Malta are not really worth the money they are being valued on the market.

Joseph Mallia

Feb 9th 2012, 10:30

I really can not understand why some Maltese are so narrow minded. Some of these comments which are completely against the Maltese Developers which look obvious how much jealousy there is in this country. I am not a Developer myself although my father worked really hard in this Building Industry but I really appreciate what the MDA is doing, taking alot of good incentives to explain and support this biggest economic industry. When we invest in our properties we need to look what are the future plans of the surroundings. All you need is just go and look at the local plans. Its useless buying a property with temporary views and you already know there s a vacant plot infront of you, like the one in Masrija - Mellieha. If you really want a guaranteed view all you have to do is your homework correctly when you invest in buying property! Other comments are completely non-sense. Well done MDA!!

Edward Galea

Feb 9th 2012, 10:19

I wonder why people keep on saying there are so many developments in the island, does anyone property fit all. i personally have been looking for an apartment to the highest standards, elevator, open spaces etc and when going around with real estate agents it seems the majority available on the market unless they are too expensive do not satisfty me or my wife's needs. feels like this country does not know how to put things into perspective, people comment according to their mood and not their brain.

Joseph Grech Attard

Feb 9th 2012, 10:17

Is it true or isn't it that developers seek land with views and then advertise this fact when the land is developed, and whoever buys property with a view has to pay more for it? Who is going to protect these buyers? Why do developers build the land in such a way that, for example, on apartment or villa does not obstruct the other? If people are made to pay more for property with views, then those views should be protected, or else the sellers should be made to compensate if such a property is obstructed. This is just and fair. Most unobstructed land is developed because there are no building permits in front i.e. what one calls green area. Once permits are issued (by hook and, mostly, by crook) the government responsible should compensate those who have lost the view, either directly or indirectly through the new developer. Justice needs to be felt and seen that it being done and not just spoken about. Injustice brings about frustration, division and revolutions, one day or another.

Debbie Toson

Feb 9th 2012, 10:16

Malta has an awful lot of new developments for sale - keep building and Malta will have to be bailed out by the EU.

Stop being greedy and stop destroying this beautiful country with the concrete jungle it is becoming.

Andrew Saliba

Feb 9th 2012, 09:56

What a bunch of ridiculous comments. Of course houses with views are more valuable, and the brokers will emphasize such a characteristic. This doesn't mean that anyone has a right to a view. If you like views, buy a property some place where it would be impossible to build in front of you. Why do you think homes along the seafront are so valuable, and will always be valuable?

O GALEA

Feb 9th 2012, 09:55

what if you've bought AND PAID FOR a property with
views overlooking a GREEN AREA.....? a green area that all of a sudden has a permit issued for development. OR more likely
you bought and paid for an apartment in an area having a height restriction... so you think you have guaranteed sunlight (not even views) and then, as an election draws near, permits are granted to raise the height ?
What rights have these people ? Their property is now devalued thru no fault of their own.
The Greed of the developers is without bounds.....
Tourists do NOT want to visit a country that is a perpetual building site .
WE'RE SICK OF IT.

and now... they want to develop the little bit of space we have in the north... Manoel Island.

I've got an idea... let's raze malta to the ground, cover it in concrete and start over. Isn't that what they want? :-(

Tony Borg

Feb 9th 2012, 09:50

I might agree with the MDA but, and it's a BIG BUT, all permits should respect the hight limitations for a particular area.

At ta' Marija the hight limitation is 3 floors and a penthouse, hence all applications higher that this should be outrightly rejected by MEPA.

C Muscat

Feb 9th 2012, 09:46

The Malta Developers Association (MDA)insisted today that the planning system cannot be expected to protect views enjoyed by property owners over third party properties.

MEPA is the town planner, responsable to issue the schemes and land use regulations and not responsable for third party personal property.

Ideally everything is right but in practice MEPA refuses a permit for an extention of a school to safeguard the property of neighbours from the sun.

To add insult to injury I hope no one had any conflict of interest in such cases.

John Dee

Feb 9th 2012, 09:42

People buying properties in Spain fall for this all the time - they buy an apartment advertised as 'front line development', only to have another 'front line development' built immediately ahead of them, followed by a third soon after, and so on!
Why are people so ready to believe everything an estate agent tells them?

Alex Saliba

Feb 9th 2012, 09:40

Hmm. But how come developers value their properties for sale according to views they enjoy such as sea views, country views etc?. Why are penthouses sold at much higher prices? Is it not because they enjoy views over third party properties? It seems that home owners do not have any right over third party properties but developers have all the rights.

Alex Saliba

Mr Daniel Jones

Feb 9th 2012, 09:38

So developers have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for so long. That they have absolutely no respect for the areas that they are developing. It's not a matter of rights to a view, its a matter of building a property which is sympathetic to the surrounding area. Something which is sadly lacking in Malta - the recent judicial building in Valetta is a prime example.

What can the rest of us do? Simply stop buying property from these developers. There are plenty of vacant properties on the island. Simply buy an existing one. Hit them where it hurts, in the pocket.

They are contributing to their own downfall anyway, with all the vacant property, the price bubble will burst. Look at the monstrosity opposite the Addolarata cemetery. Empty.

Victor Laiviera

Feb 9th 2012, 09:37

But this has never stopped the developers and estate agents from using these views as a selling-point for their properties. "Enjoys extensive sea and country views" is a common feature of many adverts. It seems that, once the sale is made, such promises become a burden.

They cannot have their cake and eat it.

James Pace

Feb 9th 2012, 09:35

Is MDA trying to be ironic here or what?

Could it be that the view is not protected when they want to build in certain locations, but when selling the property the view is sacred so they can earn an extra couple of extra thousand Euro?

Can they explain why developers charge exorbitant prices for properties with views... if as they say the view is not being sold with the property???? I know they are legally right because the view can never be sold with a building... but are they admitting that some developers have been fooling people for years and are still fooling people when selling properties with high prices because of the view?

Reuben D. Spiteri

Feb 9th 2012, 09:33

While it may be true that property owners do not have any right as regards to views they enjoy from it, I 'think' we have enough buildings on this island!

What's next? Filfla??

S Micallef

Feb 9th 2012, 09:31

Dear MDA - you have over-devloped the country and in the worst possible way, with one thing in mind...to fatten your wallet.

What a bunch of money hungry people! Who will buy all these tiny, claustrophobic rooms you call apartments?

And shame on the architects, MEPA and George Pullicino too! You have ruined the country!

Borg Joseph

Feb 9th 2012, 09:30

My Lord, what cheekiness;
'MEPA is not – and should not – assume the role of a regulator that ...'

Isn't MEPA an authority? If it doesn't regulate, who or what will? The developers?

Greed, this is all about greed, while some live in their mansions, the rest should succumb to what suits best to these few?

U halluna dear developers and start earning an honest living.... Geez

Brian Johnson

Feb 9th 2012, 09:29

From what I see in my frequent visits to the Islands, properties are built where they shoudn't be, thereby enjoying views which they shouldn't, and blocking those of others in the process. Then these properties expect their own poached views to be protected!!! What s good for the goose is also good for the gander, I suppose, in the sense that it is highly debatable whether such fungal growths should be allowed to enjoy the spoils of their development. Just take a look at the area surrounding Marsascala church....the church, which was previously a quaint landmark for the village, has been surrounded and dwarfed by concrete monstrosities. Keeping the goose reference, this time in relation to developers killing the goose that lats the golden egg, namely the charm Malta used to enjoy.

LOUIS JOSEPH BORG

Feb 9th 2012, 09:25

totally agree that owners do not have a right for a view but one must not forget that real estate agents brainwashed the general public in beileving that properties with views cost more money ! also few people have time these days to sit down and spend the day looking at the sea or countryside!

John Zammit

Feb 9th 2012, 09:25

So will developers stop mentioning things like "unobstructed sea views" in their adverts, just in case they decide to plonk another block of flat next door?

Adrian Gatt

Feb 9th 2012, 09:25

The MDA is correct when stating that MEPA should keep to its planning restrictions. BUT is MEPA planning towns? How can MEPA plan a town when it does not know what the final population be when built to its own plan? How can MEPA plan a town if it keeps on adding developments to a town when MEPA itself said about 10 years ago that more development cannot be sustained due to lack of adequate traffic, services, open space provisions etc? MEPA IS NOT A TOWN PLANNER. Mepa is their to suit developers and their associations like MDA whose only interest is not to make sure developers respect rights of third parties but to get as much money from their developments irrespective of third parties. To understand better my points refer the above to Sliema.
And regarding views MEPA has stated the following in its local plans, not that it does follow it "POLICY UCO 10: Developments will not be permitted which adversely affect views of or from Urban Conservation Areas, or which detract from the traditional urban skyline. Particularly important views will be identified in detail in Local Plans."

Mark Frankalanza

Feb 9th 2012, 09:23

Min hemm wara din? WARA IL KWINTI?
MA BNEJTUWEIX BIZZEJJED MALTA?
Pastazata. Kollox go xulxin. L aqwa li NROSSU.

Jon Vercellono

Feb 9th 2012, 09:12

Let them shoot themselves in the foot when the property values of adjoining properties fall (hopefully bringing down the value of the greedy developers' properties as well).

Francis Saliba M.D.

Feb 9th 2012, 09:05

" ... In fact the so-called right for views has never been a part of the rights of property in Malta "

Not unless the view was from an "Gharix" the property of the Mintoff family!

Lawrence Fenech

Feb 9th 2012, 09:05

Minn jigi ala b...u min nies hekk jirraguna.

James Dimech

Feb 9th 2012, 09:04

Well then I hope that the free market teaches developers a lesson when they will fail to sell the hundreds of chicken houses they built all over Malta, which are basically uninhabitable and not worth a penny.