Safeguarding building heritage

Anna Briffa`s article "How well is the PA looking after our building heritage?" (The Sunday Times, May 12) requires clarification due to a number of misconceptions. The following points need to be made:

The building heights such as those along Sliema seafront are established through the 1988 development schemes approved by Parliament and MEPA has a legal obligation to observe them;

Local built heritage was until now primarily protected through the Antiquities Act. The Cultural Heritage Act recently approved by Parliament is replacing that Act;

MEPA`s contribution to the protection of natural and built heritage is through the scheduling process. Sites of natural or historic importance are listed or scheduled, adding legal protection to the sites;

MEPA board and committee members are guided by the Government code of ethics which provides for situations of conflict of interest;

Pre-submission meetings are carried out to avoid unnecessary effort and delay and may only sometimes be related to issues of heritage protection;

The sanctioning of illegal development is accompanied by fines established by law and it is no surprise that Ms Briffa never heard of anyone being imprisoned; and

New developments are always checked for compliance with approved plans and certified by an architect before compliance certificates are issued.

The Planning Authority at its inception had appointed an advisory committee on heritage which became known as the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC). This body of experts is an integral part of the Authority and operates in an advisory capacity. Its advice is sought when there are applications affecting urban conservation areas, listed or scheduled buildings.

The arguments that the HAC cannot appeal from board decisions, that its advice may be turned down or that it only learns of the decisions taken when these become public knowledge do not make much sense. The deciding body is the Development Control Commission, which takes into consideration the advice of the HAC, the Museums Department, government bodies, agencies and other interested parties.

Of concern was Ms Briffa`s argument in favour of more secrecy so that "decisions are unfettered by the fear of making enemies and attracting retaliation".

The meetings of MEPA`s decision-taking bodies are all held in public, the voting is public, the files are public and the recommendations made by the Directorate are public. The case officer reports may even be downloaded from the MEPA Website. MEPA believes that transparency throughout the whole planning system ensures accountability and acts as a deterrent against abuse.

Through the new Cultural Heritage Act more transparency is expected to be introduced to the whole operation of the HAC. The new committee will have two panels, one for cultural heritage and one for natural heritage. The cultural heritage panel shall be composed of a chairman and three members appointed by the minister responsible for culture and three other members appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment after consulting the Authority.

Each panel will be required to make any recommendation available for public inspection and report regularly to the Authority and the Committee of Guarantee set up under the Cultural Heritage Act.

MEPA apologises for the delay in replying to the questions by Ms Briffa. However, a little effort on her part, even a visit to our Website, would have avoided much misinformation.