Loopholes on purpose?
Published on Malta Independent on 17th September, 2006
It seems to be common practice to build tourist-related facilities to get around planning regulations and build outside the development zones.
Let us take as an example the application concerning a development near Ramla Bay in Xaghra, Gozo.
The developer has made an application to demolish the existing commercial complex (commonly known as the Ulysses Lodge) and build a good number of bungalows (or villas?). So since these have the appeal of investing in tourism, the application is approved, with the consequence that the developer builds a number of houses outside the development zone. Isn’t it nice, my dear? Yes, sweet, this is the way to go about it!
Or the Hondoq ir-Rummien application. The developers, while dangling the investing-in-tourism carrot in front of politicians who are hungry for success in tourism, will build 250 (!!) residential units (they are houses or apartments) outside the development zone. And maybe, you never know, the hotel may also be turned into apartments, as happened to Mgarr Hotel!
I am against granting permission for such applications. If the developer wants to tear down Ulysses Lodge, he’ll be blessed if he changes it back to its natural habitat. And if the developers are so anxious to embellish Hondoq ir-Rummien, let them rehabilitate the quarry to a natural habitat.
Why do we allow such loopholes in our Develop-ment Act? Why not declare “No Development Outside the Development Zone?” It says so in the name itself, silly! And why not set the boundaries? Or are we to continue bending them according to what serves best the interests of power and money? Why should not the land, our precious natural land, be accorded the same status as education and health?
Joe Portelli
Nadur
It seems to be common practice to build tourist-related facilities to get around planning regulations and build outside the development zones.
Let us take as an example the application concerning a development near Ramla Bay in Xaghra, Gozo.
The developer has made an application to demolish the existing commercial complex (commonly known as the Ulysses Lodge) and build a good number of bungalows (or villas?). So since these have the appeal of investing in tourism, the application is approved, with the consequence that the developer builds a number of houses outside the development zone. Isn’t it nice, my dear? Yes, sweet, this is the way to go about it!
Or the Hondoq ir-Rummien application. The developers, while dangling the investing-in-tourism carrot in front of politicians who are hungry for success in tourism, will build 250 (!!) residential units (they are houses or apartments) outside the development zone. And maybe, you never know, the hotel may also be turned into apartments, as happened to Mgarr Hotel!
I am against granting permission for such applications. If the developer wants to tear down Ulysses Lodge, he’ll be blessed if he changes it back to its natural habitat. And if the developers are so anxious to embellish Hondoq ir-Rummien, let them rehabilitate the quarry to a natural habitat.
Why do we allow such loopholes in our Develop-ment Act? Why not declare “No Development Outside the Development Zone?” It says so in the name itself, silly! And why not set the boundaries? Or are we to continue bending them according to what serves best the interests of power and money? Why should not the land, our precious natural land, be accorded the same status as education and health?
Joe Portelli
Nadur
posted by Hondoq at
7:00 PM
