Look at all the companies he’s a shareholder or director of. He must be a multi millionaire at the least. He has so many properties and businesses in his name. Is that never enough? Must he destroy what little environment the people of Swieqi and St. Julian’s have left?
Whoever this man is, I sincerely hope he falls down the stairs and breaks his legs today. Ma ħaqqekx aħjar min hekk.
Here is what YOU can do about it (taken from a FB post):
I object to the above application for the following reasons:
1. The site in question is Outside the Development Zone (ODZ), in an Area of High Landscape Protection (SPED 2015), an Area of High Landscape Sensitivity (North Harbours Local Plan), and an Area of Ecological Importance. These considerations should supersede any other considerations which might be twisted and tweaked to permit any development. An isolated site in the middle of a protected natural valley should not be allowed to be developed if the concept of “Planning” in Malta is to have any significance and purpose. The Planning Authority is urged to stop further degradation of our natural environment.
2. Development on this site was the subject of two Refusals by the Planning Authority (PA 6335/08 and PA 6493/19), and to a Refusal by the Appeals Tribunal (PAB 282/20) which confirmed the latter PA Refusal.
Quoting from the EPRT Decision:
“It-Tribunal ma jibqalux triq ohra hlief li jikkonkludi illi kemm fis-sena 1978 u anke fil-present l-istrutturi ezistenti, li inbnew minghajr permess, jikkonsistu biss f’rovini ta’ binja illegali li qatt ma tlestiet u ntuzat”.
Quoting from the Planning Authority submission in the same Appeal:
“The Residential Use is not established since the building was left in shell form”.
In actual fact, the existing ruin was never connected to the mains electricity, water or sewage systems, as can be verified on site, and this not only proves that it was never used but might imply that it was not built legally and therefore was not eligible for connection to these services.
3. The applicant has submitted an approved PAPB Plan (2372/69) which purports to show that the existing building was covered by a permit. However, there is no proof that this plan relates to the site in question. It is known that the general area in which the site is located was briefly included in the Development Scheme before this decision was reversed, and that, according to submissions made by the Appellant / Applicant in the course of the Appeal 282/20, it is known that “the original intention of the building in question was to serve as a show house for other similar houses to be built in the area”. Therefore the developer / owner’s intention was to replicate the existing ruined house all over the site, and consequently the PB 2372/69 approved plans could relate to another site within the confines of the then developable territory. Once more, the submission of approved drawings does not in any way prove that these drawings relate to the site in question.
4. A residential property on the site in question would not conform to the DC15 Document Policy P27, since it is not on a schemed road, and is in fact circa 100 metres away from the Schemed Road. Therefore the proposed villa cannot be permitted.
5. In principle no development is to take place in an ODZ area. The Planning regulations in 2023 are different to those in 1969, and fortunately the approach to preservation of the natural environment is now more enlightened. In this day and age we cannot tolerate the intrusion into protected areas by development, and this is a principle which should take precedence over any other consideration. I request that the Planning Authority should take a strong and final decision not to accept applications in precious ODZ land once and for all.
Therefore I ask that this application be refused outright, and that Enforcement action be taken to remove the building existing on site.
So long as all 4 tumoli are privately owned and the area is well maintained to be honest I don’t oppose this. I’d rather see a nice farmhouse with well maintained farmland instead of wild grass all around.
25 years ago I used to hang out there with friends to smoke and drink as teens do. That place was never ever used. It was built illegally and instead of dropping out and returning the land to how it should be, they left it there for issues like this to arise in the future…. This is a case in point
Rule of law means nothing. And outside the greed and rape of this country and the destruction of any future as a nation ..
It comes down to rule of law. You either make a rule that says you can or you make a rule that says you cannot.
The reason we are having this discussion is because the rules don’t apply equally to all .. why? Coz Malta is a fucked third world corrupt country with a population to match. The current situation is clearly built on corruption.
But we know the laws are there just for show. The law starts and finishes with the political parties. They are above the law. They can steal, murder and corrupt and the Maltese gimp happily kisses their shit covered ass.
This is the real issue. Rule of law. Make a rule that says you can develop villas with a certain amount of landscaping for example, or just say you cannot and enforce it. Also if you want to protect an area, buy them out.
I know intelligence and being Maltese are not compatible. But all the talk will change nothing until we get rule of law that works on the powerful and not on the gimps.
What bullshit… Just fucking stop people from applying for these sort of developments on odz. Everytime such a ridiculous development is stopped it saps the spirit of objectors and NGOs at very little cost to the applicant.
6 comments
I believe this is the [applicant Neville Agius](https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/56034685), based on the related addresses in Swieqi and near Wied Għomor itself.
Look at all the companies he’s a shareholder or director of. He must be a multi millionaire at the least. He has so many properties and businesses in his name. Is that never enough? Must he destroy what little environment the people of Swieqi and St. Julian’s have left?
Whoever this man is, I sincerely hope he falls down the stairs and breaks his legs today. Ma ħaqqekx aħjar min hekk.
Here is what YOU can do about it (taken from a FB post):
Wied Ghomor needs your dedicated support once again. Please object to PA 2876/23 through this link here https://www.pa.org.mt/en/representationform?CaseFullRef=PA/02876/23&SystemKey=272881&target= You are welcome to use our objection which you may copy from here: Re: PA 2876/23
Proposed villa, Plot 9 Wied il-Kbir, Swieqi
REPRESENTATION
I object to the above application for the following reasons:
1. The site in question is Outside the Development Zone (ODZ), in an Area of High Landscape Protection (SPED 2015), an Area of High Landscape Sensitivity (North Harbours Local Plan), and an Area of Ecological Importance. These considerations should supersede any other considerations which might be twisted and tweaked to permit any development. An isolated site in the middle of a protected natural valley should not be allowed to be developed if the concept of “Planning” in Malta is to have any significance and purpose. The Planning Authority is urged to stop further degradation of our natural environment.
2. Development on this site was the subject of two Refusals by the Planning Authority (PA 6335/08 and PA 6493/19), and to a Refusal by the Appeals Tribunal (PAB 282/20) which confirmed the latter PA Refusal.
Quoting from the EPRT Decision:
“It-Tribunal ma jibqalux triq ohra hlief li jikkonkludi illi kemm fis-sena 1978 u anke fil-present l-istrutturi ezistenti, li inbnew minghajr permess, jikkonsistu biss f’rovini ta’ binja illegali li qatt ma tlestiet u ntuzat”.
Quoting from the Planning Authority submission in the same Appeal:
“The Residential Use is not established since the building was left in shell form”.
In actual fact, the existing ruin was never connected to the mains electricity, water or sewage systems, as can be verified on site, and this not only proves that it was never used but might imply that it was not built legally and therefore was not eligible for connection to these services.
3. The applicant has submitted an approved PAPB Plan (2372/69) which purports to show that the existing building was covered by a permit. However, there is no proof that this plan relates to the site in question. It is known that the general area in which the site is located was briefly included in the Development Scheme before this decision was reversed, and that, according to submissions made by the Appellant / Applicant in the course of the Appeal 282/20, it is known that “the original intention of the building in question was to serve as a show house for other similar houses to be built in the area”. Therefore the developer / owner’s intention was to replicate the existing ruined house all over the site, and consequently the PB 2372/69 approved plans could relate to another site within the confines of the then developable territory. Once more, the submission of approved drawings does not in any way prove that these drawings relate to the site in question.
4. A residential property on the site in question would not conform to the DC15 Document Policy P27, since it is not on a schemed road, and is in fact circa 100 metres away from the Schemed Road. Therefore the proposed villa cannot be permitted.
5. In principle no development is to take place in an ODZ area. The Planning regulations in 2023 are different to those in 1969, and fortunately the approach to preservation of the natural environment is now more enlightened. In this day and age we cannot tolerate the intrusion into protected areas by development, and this is a principle which should take precedence over any other consideration. I request that the Planning Authority should take a strong and final decision not to accept applications in precious ODZ land once and for all.
Therefore I ask that this application be refused outright, and that Enforcement action be taken to remove the building existing on site.
So long as all 4 tumoli are privately owned and the area is well maintained to be honest I don’t oppose this. I’d rather see a nice farmhouse with well maintained farmland instead of wild grass all around.
25 years ago I used to hang out there with friends to smoke and drink as teens do. That place was never ever used. It was built illegally and instead of dropping out and returning the land to how it should be, they left it there for issues like this to arise in the future…. This is a case in point
Rule of law means nothing. And outside the greed and rape of this country and the destruction of any future as a nation ..
It comes down to rule of law. You either make a rule that says you can or you make a rule that says you cannot.
The reason we are having this discussion is because the rules don’t apply equally to all .. why? Coz Malta is a fucked third world corrupt country with a population to match. The current situation is clearly built on corruption.
But we know the laws are there just for show. The law starts and finishes with the political parties. They are above the law. They can steal, murder and corrupt and the Maltese gimp happily kisses their shit covered ass.
This is the real issue. Rule of law. Make a rule that says you can develop villas with a certain amount of landscaping for example, or just say you cannot and enforce it. Also if you want to protect an area, buy them out.
I know intelligence and being Maltese are not compatible. But all the talk will change nothing until we get rule of law that works on the powerful and not on the gimps.
What bullshit… Just fucking stop people from applying for these sort of developments on odz. Everytime such a ridiculous development is stopped it saps the spirit of objectors and NGOs at very little cost to the applicant.