| # | Name | Country of Residence | Comments |
|---|
| 4651 | Wendy Scerri | MT | It would completely ruin Ramla bay and is totally unecessary. |
| 4652 | Martin Felice | MT | Hallu ir-ramla il-hamra naturali |
| 4653 | Rita Debono | IT | |
| 4654 | Kimberley Borg | MT | Its utter madness that MEPA allows such things. |
| 4655 | simon galea | MT | NO Development Applications should be considered in ODZ. |
| 4656 | Jonas Thor | IS | The person who owns the Ulysses Lodge plot has every right to apply to MEPA for reconstruction. I do not accept the decision that MEPA made with no provisions in the decree. If MEPA was transparent and open for discussions on Ramla l-Hamra proposal, then there might have been some acceptable aggreements by all parties involved. However, if the developement goes forward as I hope it will not, then I would demand that the structures be as to blend into the natural background of the area. I cannot believe that the owners would not agree to that. It might be said that area now is a total mess with rubbish, dumping building materials and general discombobulation of the structures on the site. |
| 4657 | Elizabeth Axiaq | MT | |
| 4658 | Anonymous | MT | |
| 4659 | Anonymous | IE | A beautiful area that would surely be ruined by such a ugly development that is neither sustainable nor well thought out. |
| 4660 | Dr R Evans | GB | This development will destroy a unique environment not only for Gozo but the Maltese islands as a whole. It must be resisted at all costs. |
| 4661 | Adrian Mallia | MT | Even if the development is 50m outside a candidate Natura 2000 site, the construction impacts will surely affect the special conservation area. Why was an EIA not carried out? Basing decisions solely on preliminary studies in such a location is incredible. The biggest impact - landscape - was in any case not considered. Rather than waiving the need for an EIA on such a sensitive development, MEPA should have insisted on one as well as the holding of a public hearing. There should be no discretion for projects that may affect N2000 and similar sites. |
| 4662 | Astrid Frendo | MT | |
| 4663 | Justin | GB | Ramla should be left as it is nice beautyful and perfect !!! |
| 4664 | Anonymous | MT | Ramla l-Hamra should be left in a prestine condition and not developed. |
| 4665 | Maryann Muscat | MT | it is important that we keep our natural habitat free of buidings. |
| 4666 | Jane Tabone | MT | |
| 4667 | Anonymous | MT | PRESERVE OUR LAST BEACHES |
| 4668 | Janet Slinn | GB | No more over development! Keep Ramla Bay as it is! |
| 4669 | Angelique Bugeja | MT | |
| 4670 | Anonymous | IT | |
| 4671 | daniel abela | MT | |
| 4672 | Anonymous | MT | There is not much we can do about Malta as we have managed very well to spoil this a long time ago. Let us take care of Gozo - even if we as a nation have to find ways to support the sister Island in retaing its natural beauty. |
| 4673 | Josette Portelli | MT | |
| 4674 | Karl Schembri | MT | |
| 4675 | susan farrugia | MT | Enough is enough! |
| 4676 | Marlene | MT | |
| 4677 | Liz Farley-Hills | GB | I think the bay should be left unspoilt as it is. |
| 4678 | Anonymous | MT | |
| 4679 | Sandra Azzopardi | MT | Stop the uglification of Gozo....enough is enough. |
| 4680 | Ian Borg Bellanti | MT | |
| 4681 | Joe Ghio | MT | |
| 4682 | trevor schembri | AE | Sad times indeed. Mepa is continuing to lose its credibility....... |
| 4683 | Kenneth | MT | |
| 4684 | Lydia Lentini | MT | |
| 4685 | Zerafa John | MT | This was a disgusting decision, after all the "beautiful" words said by Environment Minister. |
| 4686 | Denise Ann Buhagiar | MT | |
| 4687 | Antoinette Micallef | MT | It is so obvious that with this permit the Ramla l-Hamra will be greatly damaged that there is no need to comment |
| 4688 | Alexander Cortis | MT | It is inconceivable that a serious Govt would exploit the countryside in such a callous way just to satisfy speculators and profiteers, to the long-term detriment of everyone else. |
| 4689 | Anonymous | MT | |
| 4690 | Jessica Abdilla | MT | |
| 4691 | Sarah Banavage | MT | |
| 4692 | Chris Galea | MT | |
| 4693 | mario mizzi | MT | |
| 4694 | David Abela | MT | This country could be a jewel in the centre of the Mediterranean but has been turned into a pigsty by developers with the blessing of the authority SPECIFICALLY set up to avoid land development speculation. |
| 4695 | NATASHA FARRUGIA | MT | |
| 4696 | Edward degaetano | MT | |
| 4697 | Sylvana DeBono, PRO MEPA | MT | 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 ‘Non Urban Areas’. 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 “extensive field surveys and archival research” and “found no archaeological features in the area to be developed close to Calypso Cave”.
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 MEPA’s 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. |
| 4698 | Doriette Rizzo Naudi | MT | PLease stop this scandalous behaviour. If MEPA is no longer functioning as it should be then it is about time we do away with it! |
| 4699 | John P Busuttil | MT | Power corrupts |
| 4700 | Elizabeth Grech Sollars | MT | Disgraceful |