Ramla: The lesser of two evils (letters) - www.timesofmalta.com
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Michael Galea, St Andrews.
I am not one to defend Mepa on the issuing of permits. Many a mistake has been done. But this time I cannot agree with the protesters against the Ramla Bay development.
If the issue were that Mepa was issuing a permit for undeveloped land, I would understand all the noise and I myself would make some of my own. But this isn't such a case. This isn't a question of protecting the environment because the land marked for development is already built up and not in too fine a way either. Also, the new development has a smaller footprint than the present structures and also promises to improve and upgrade the area from the present eyesore it currently is. So, when you think about it, that doesn't seem like too bad a deal at all.
Kevin Cauchi, Ghajnsielem.
Many have written declaring their indignation at the development of the present site of the Ulysses Lodge area overlooking Ramla l-Hamra.
The existing site is characterised by massive buildings that certainly do not respect the site's topographical features. The area has long been "raped" and no-one seems to have protested in recent years. Do we want to keep the existing eyesore?
Having seen the computer images in The Times, the new development will have a much lower visual impact than the existing structures.
The villas will be much lower in height and camouflaged by trees and rubble walls. There is no way the developer will risk the revocation of the permit by not landscaping the area as agreed on the permit conditions!
On the other hand, I wonder why there wasn't such a big outcry over the proposed cemetery on the Nadur side where 600 graves are planned including a massive chapel - all of which will be developed on undisturbed land.
The issuing of a re-development permit at the Ulysses Lodge which promises to be less intrusive and more integrated within the surrounding countryside seems rather advantageous to this particular area as it stands today, and not the opposite! Maybe it's a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Michael Bonello, St Julians.
I was intrigued by the onslaught of letters regarding the Ulysses Lodge development. However on reading through the deluge of correspondence and articles that have mushroomed in the press I am left slightly perplexed. Most do not really seem to know what they are talking about.
Haven't they forgotten something? How can people speak of "leaving a portion of Gozo untouched" when this specific area is already developed and in a none-too environmentally friendly way either?
If anything, this development claims to be able to undo the damage and seems aesthetically pleasing unlike the grotesque structure that has graced that particular part of Gozo for a couple of decades now.
:: back to news