From Ms S. DeBono

I refer to the article entitled “The Rape of Ramla” (TMIS, 6 November).

The proposed development, which according to the article is allegedly going to rape Ramla, is actually the mitigated re-development of a site that was impinging negatively on the valley and the bay. A point made in the report, which was omitted in the article, is that the footprint of the development is to be retained and that the original proposal by the applicant to breach this footprint by constructing four new villas was turned down by the Authority. So, one can be permitted to ask if the headline chosen is not, in fact, a misnomer in the sense that this re-development will not be taking up new, previously undeveloped land.

The article, quoting the case officer’s report, states further that the option to leave the site as is would achieve nothing in terms of improved environment. The report goes on to say that the re-development of the site will be a clear example of the sensitive re-development of a derelict ambience.

The decision of the Authority, taken four-and-a-half months ago, was aimed at the redevelopment of this erstwhile derelict site with a view to rehabilitate and not wreak harvoc on the environment.

Sylvana DeBono

Public Relations Officer

MEPA