No further development - Letter in Times of Malta

"To justify the extension of the development boundaries carried out in 2006, the Minister for the Environment had stated that no further development would be allowed outside the boundaries. This permit flies in the face of this undertaking and bodes very badly for the protection of the remaining countryside," Din l-Art Helwa was quoted as saying on Ramla l-Hamra (June 8).

Doesn't this proves the empty words by the Ministry and his aides in defence of the extension of development boundaries? Is this proof that it was morally and technically wrong? Didn't we have enough area already within the existing zones? Was it some sinister pressures outside the professional terms of reference of Mepa itself? How many original individual owners who had property in between buildings had been actually heard in spite of using them as a convenient excuse? Will we see later, after all the next election dust has settled, well-known people getting brazenly wealthy from raping the land in question? Will we suffer further threats to our heritage and nature outside this area even then, because people around those in power may have other things in mind?

In spite of the gimmicky pre-election Ix-Xaghra il-Hamra end-of-term wrapping, the bad example has been set form the very authorities in power and there is no turning back without due pain. A strong front should be set up to reverse the damage. I for one have taken the issue to court together with those who cared to join. With the help of Alternattiva Demokratika who offered its legal assistance we will challenge the government in court in a case hopefully starting to be heard soon.

Lino Busuttil, Iklin

Permit or No Permit - Letter in Times of Malta

It was with great dismay and sadness that I read the news on Saturday morning in which Mepa gave the go-ahead for the development at Ramla l-Hamra. We really never learn, do we?

I urge all those with enough intelligence to see that this deplorable development is tantamount to the destruction of a vital part of one of our most important cultural and natural heritage sites, to make their voice heard now.

Apathy has already allowed us to destroy much of the beauty this island had to offer. The time for serious civil action has begun.

Nikki Camilleri, Msida

Ramla l-Hamra development

I have just been reading about the latest fantastic decision by MEPA to approve the development of a 23-villa tourist complex on the slopes leading to the Calypso Caves at Ramla l-Hamra. Am I missing something here? Are MEPA not supposed to be working to protect the environment? I thought the fact that the proposed development at Hondoq ir-Rummien was even being discussed was bad enough, but that MEPA have actually approved this Ramla l-Hamra development is beyond belief. Perhaps I've got MEPA's role totally wrong here and in fact their job is to smooth the way for money grabbing developers to ruin the entire island!

Why did MEPA not ask the developer to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the development, even though failure to do so is in breach of EU regulations? Perhaps MEPA are in fact a law onto themselves? I also find it strange that MEPA asked the developer to make a number of studies, including an archaeological study, which found no particular archaeological remains. Surely any studies of this type should be carried out in a totally independent manner by an outside agency. Do MEPA think that the developer would report any archaeological remains if they did find them? Why would they when this would at least cause a delay in any development and possibly halt it altogether?

I would direct MEPA to their own Policy BEN 2: which states;

Development will not normally be permitted if, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, it is incompatible with the good urban design, natural heritage, and environmental characteristics of existing or planned adjacent uses, and is unlikely to maintain the good visual integrity of the area in which it is located. I would think that 23 villas stuck on a slope beneath the Calypso Caves might just be detrimental to the environmental characteristics of the area. And unless they build them underground they are bound to have an impact on the visual integrity of the area. Dr Harry Vassallo, AD's chairperson said that this scandalous decision taken by the MEPA board will continue to undermine MEPA's credibility as the environmental regulator. My question would be 'What credibility'?

James A. Tyrell, N. Ireland

Winners & Loosers

Mr John Ebejer extols, by means of a series of crass examples, ('Classified', The Sunday Times, February 25) the virtues of "development", while doing his utmost, in an unbelievably pompous manner, to discredit all those who happen to object to a development, as individuals or NGOs.

Mr Ebejer makes sweeping accusations against people who have objected to development projects for whatever reason. His article is peppered with snide remarks about objectors "making up stories", of "painting doomsday scenarios", "resorting to deception which can take more subtle forms". He hints darkly at "collusion of the media", to arguments which are "grossly exaggerated or unreasonable". He describes objectors and NGOs as "perpetual moaners who complain about anything and everything" and accuses NGOs of "being replete with negativity" so that they "bring no new insight on how to improve our environment" - the list is endless.

If 'development', as referred to here by Mr Ebejer, constituted a genuine "improvement of our urban and rural environment" (Mr Ebejer's words), then he can rest assured that there would be few objections, if any. But reality is otherwise; such "improvement" amounts, in the vast majority of instances, to speculators tearing houses down and replacing them with faceless apartment blocks for profit. It seems to have escaped Mr Ebejer that more and more decent human beings are becoming concerned about the way Malta is being plundered by speculators' greed and avarice.

Many such decent people are starting to join NGOs and devote a lot of time and effort to protect that which makes Malta a beautiful country. People do this because they are horrified to see so much of what we know as Malta being permanently destroyed for the sake of a quick buck or to give a temporary boost to our construction industry, and see it as their duty to stop the rot.

These NGOs are not motivated, as Mr Ebejer asserts, by 'NIMByism'. Very few of those who opposed the golf course or the development project at Ta' Cenc, to mention a few such potentially damaging projects, live anywhere near these sites. Neither are "more and more people" being misled by NGOs; on the contrary, people are becoming increasingly aware of their rights and becoming more articulate when they find that they are rendered "losers" (Mr Ebejer's word again) by a development project.

Bona fide environmental NGOs are more knowledgeable than Mr Ebejer would have readers believe and, contrary to his belief, they constitute an increasingly credible and popular environment lobby. It is entirely up to proposers of a development to respond to objections published in the media by NGOs or members of the public, the likely reason that they do not is that are bankrupt of arguments in their favour to defend themselves.

Mr Ebejer himself admits that 'development' can impact on nearby residents and detract from the value of their property. This is indeed so in a great many cases. Under the circumstances, does Mr Ebejer expect people to remain passive when they see their precious property and surroundings degraded by "development", especially when the sole object of such a development is speculation and profit - and not the fulfillment of a social or other need?

What right do developers have to place themselves above the rest and to deprive residents of a decent quality of life, degrade the value of their property or rob them of the enjoyment of their home? The threat to quality of life has become so widespread that it has truly become a 'national issue' (to use Mr Ebejer's words).

Just because the number of people objecting to a particular development might be "very few" does not invalidate their claim. When referring to the development on St Anne Square, Mr Ebejer remarks that "at best the issue affected the view from a few dwellings" as though these people count for nothing (in Mr Ebejer's view, of course, they have to accept that they are the 'losers' and lump it). This kind of bias is typical of the prevailing attitude that personal gain of a few overrides the welfare of other people - not to mention aesthetic and environmental considerations.

In his pathetic attack on NGOs, he obliquely referred to 'one person' who "made up a story" using an "obscure old map" to support 'her' objection to demolition of an 18th century house in Ghar il-Lenbi Street. The facts are these: a document about the now-demolished house in question is available; this dates it to 1698. There also exist maps which show that the house existed in 1728. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage identified it as an 18th century house, supporting the claim of the 'person' referred to by Mr Ebejer. The architect, "well versed in historic architecture", was paid by the developer to defend his case to demolish an ancient house. This architect stated that it could date to 1920. Does Mr Ebejer want to know more?

The cherry on the cake is Mr Ebejer's statement: "The mistaken logic is that once (an objection) is in print, then there must be some truth in it". But people are only likely to believe what is plausible.

Mr Ebejer's article, which grandiosely claims to clarify "the dynamics of development applications", does nothing of the sort. It is such an unbelievably biased and barefaced defence of the new ruling class of environmentally frigid property speculators and developers that very few readers are likely to be taken in by it.

Dr George Debono, Sliema.

Objections to EIA Proposals
I add my voice to the objections to the EIA proposals submitted to MEPA by FAA, FoE and other environment NGO's.

Evaluation of development projects must necessarily start from the fact that what one is dealing with is no longer the already restricted area of the Maltese islands, but with the precious little that is left after long years that have seen the progressive accumulation of ill-considered projects and developments and structures based on parameters that are insensitive to their location, are offensive to the ordinary citizen whom the environmental planning structure is meant to serve, and which have all but destroyed the charm once inherent to the Maltese landscape.

Rather than broadening the parameters in excess of which EIA's are mandatory, the reverse should be the case and with added provision of weighting in favour of the ordinary citizen who at the end of the day pays the bill, not only moneywise, but more expensively in having to cope with consequent added health hazards and deterioration in his general quality of life.

Michael Vella, Sliema