Property ownership does not include right for views over third-party property – MDA

Malta Developers Association agrees that the Planning System cannot be expected to protect views enjoyed by property owners over third party properties.

9 February 2012, 12:00am
by Miriam Dalli

1 min read

Above: View from Mizieb today; Below: View from Mizieb if Masrija is developed

The Malta Developers Association (MDA) has agreed that MEPA's Planning System cannot be expected to protect views enjoyed property owners over third-party properties.

The association was reacting to the Environmental Planning Statement (EPS) submitted to MEPA on the proposed development of three adjacent sites in the Ta' Masrija area, limits of Mellieha.

The conclusions of the statement in response to concerns by residents on a high-rise development proposed in Mellieha said that views are "commodities, which are bought and sold". In other words, people expecting the heights of buildings located between their properties and desirable views cannot expect the Planning System to protect such views, the EPS said.

"The so-called right for views has never been a part of the rights of property in Malta and was never protected by any planning regime, including the current one prevailing in the country," MDA said in a statement today.

"In this case, the sites in question are within the development zone and therefore applications for development should be considered according to the parameters applicable to the site."

The association said that property ownership does not include right for views over third-party property.

"Permits for sites within development areas should be treated as such by MEPA and an inordinate time in processing relevant applications can never be justified," it said.

The association said that the rights of developers for development permits should not be subject to considerations of supply and demand in the property market as it is solely the developers concerned who decide to risk their own money in development projects.

"MEPA is not - and should not - assume the role of a regulator that interferes in the free market by imposing restrictions based on market considerations rather than on planning ones," MDA said.

Miriam Dalli joined MaltaToday.com.mt in 2010 becoming assistant editor f...

More from Miriam Dalli

•

MEPA is worse than the old PAPB of the 1980s because with all the legislation and regulation, contractors still manage to do whatever is best to them.

•

obviously the MDA has only the interest of the land speculators at heart. most probably if one (or more)of their members manages to buy parts of the gharmier boat houses, the ones deemed illegal buildings, and applies for the demolishment and construction of hotel or clusters of luxury villas, MDA will be the first to argue in favour and protect the proposal. why does not the MDA insist with its members that they re-develop abondoned buildings and empty dwellings...something which is surely in oversupply???

•

This was rarely an issue in the past when there were clear rules for the height of buildings and everybody knew where they stood - but then MEPA started allowing for higher and higher developments - why? Was it because they thought the interest of the country and the citizens was best served by allowing higher developments? Obviously not. So why?

•

What does one expect from the MDA? They want to build skyscrapers and do not care a hoot about obscuring the sun and air from neighbors. I've heard about a number of cases where the court ordered that buildings could go no higher than that stipulated in contracts more than 100 years ago and I remember reading quite recently on the local media that the Court had ordered a number of floors to be pulled down because of this. Buildings in Malta should be limited to the characteristic not more than two floors and not suffocating others for the MDA to fatten their pockets.