90 entries
Prev · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · Next
 Name: Matthew Date: 16 Jun 07 Time: 12:47pm |
I'm impressed at the way MEPA is defending this issue. MEPA should be defending the environment! It seems like everything's going in the opposite of what makes sense. I'm also concerned about the noise and light pollution that will be caused by the villas and pools at night when it is so beautiful and quiet at Ramla. |
|
Name: Vanessa Date: 16 Jun 07 Time: 12:12pm |
Jiena kontra dan l-izvilupp fuq Ramla. Ma nixtieqx nara lil bajja tar ramla tinqered fuq dawn il- hmerijiet. Xini iraguni li se jizvilupaw dan kollu fuq ramla?. Qed nuru kemm ahna il maltin ma nibzux al affarijiet presitorici maltin li andna fdin il gzira. Affarijiet bhal dawn il MEPA tati go ahead biex jinbnew, ima minjaf kem hawn nies li iridu jibnu post u ma tijomx peress. Proset tal protesta u ekk urejna x'hawn go malta u ghawdex bhalissa. Din il haga mijiex sabiha li turisti jigi ghawdex ghal vaganza u jara dan kollu. Nkomplu nigilduha forsi nibqu naraw il bajja tar ramla hekk kif inhi bhalissa. |
|
Name: Not Taken In. Date: 16 Jun 07 Time: 07:00am |
I was very pleased to see that the MEPA spokesperson has recognised the importance of 5000 concerned people signing this petition. Her statement was rather vague with words like "some pools". I would appreciate straight answers to the following points: 1. What is the built up surface area of Ulysses Lodge which HAS A PERMIT and is not just discarded building material. What is the are that will be developed by the permit granted recently? 2.You mention that only a "few" pools will be built outside the existing footprint. How many? and what is the are of their footprint including deck area etc. 3.How will these "few" pools be landscaped as tall trees will put the pools in the shade. 4. You state that the outline permit was granted before the local plans were published. This shows that this development is not a good idea as it goes against the local plans. Whatever the legalities are, this development is a bad idea. 5. If the archaeology report was so good, why did the four archaeologist authors issue a press release stating that it was not an impact assessment? 6. If MEPA really wants the public to access the documents it should publish ALL the documents (which means ALL)on the website, to make them truly freely available to all. |
|
Name: Malti Date: 15 Jun 07 Time: 10:00am |
Jiena kontra l-izvilupp ta dan il post ghax huwa wirt naturali. Dak il bini kollhu ha jaghmel hsara lill-ambjent fil-futur u jekk nhallu dan l-izvillup jigri, ha nkunu qeghdin naghmlu zbal kbir! Il-MEPA ma nistax nifhem il-ghala ma jistax jizvillupa ic-centru tar rhula u bliet li hafna minnhom huma vojta bhal Rue D'Argens, Msida - fejn hemm ruxmata djar abbundanati. Jien ghalija hemmek jista jaghmel 23 villa u gnejniet! Din hija ipokrazija ! Jekk dan l-izvillup jsehh, BOYCOTT - DONT VOTE PN !! |
|
Name: Sylvana Debono, Pro Mepa Date: 15 Jun 07 Time: 08:41am |
The following statements have been made in public and are being propagated as truth. MEPA would like to comment on the following statements: Statement 1: The proposed footprint is twice as large as the existing footprint. Not True. The development will only take up the part of the site which has been disturbed by human intervention with the exception of some swimming pools. This amounts to about 8, 000 sq m from a total of 40, 000 sq m. The terraced fields and unspoilt land will not be touched. Ramla Bay is not affected by this development and neither are the remains in the bay or the ecological zoning. Statement 2: The Structure Plan and Local Plan policies do not allow such development Outside Development Zone. Not so. The Structure plan is specific in permitting the Authority to consider applications outside the development zone. This falls under the section âNon Urban Areasâ. The outline permit was issued before the Gozo and Comino Local Plan was approved and so prevails over the Local Plan. Statement 3: No consultation. Not so. Both Outline and Full development applications had their periods of statutory public consultation as according to the Development Planning Act, duly announced on the papers. Statement 4: Environment Impact Assessment was not carried out. Not required. The studies submitted in the project description statement were very detailed and deemed sufficient for the waiving of the EIA. Statement 5: Archaeological study was not carried out. Not true. The archaeologists specifically state in the submitted report that the archaeological studies were based on âextensive field surveys and archival researchâ and âfound no archaeological features in the area to be developed close to Calypso Caveâ. Statement 6: In the process of the Outline Development Application there were irregularities. If this is so, Article 39A of the Development Planning Act may be invoked by anyone who can prove this case. Statement 7: MEPA has restricted access to documents. No. Access to these documents, in line with MEPAâs obligations to Environmental Information, has been available since 2005. Journalists have already had the opportunity to view these documents and they are still available for public scrutiny. |