MEPA and urban regeneration

MEPA has been in the news recently with reports on two controversial cases of applications for redevelopment.

One case concerns the demolition of a house in Sliema, an issue which according to MEPA sources, was blown out of proportion by people protesting against this demolition. I have not gone into the merits of the case and I shall not do so now except to add that I understand that among the avid promoters of the cause for the preservation of what was alleged to be an important building in the context of Malta's architectural heritage, there was someone who had a personal interest in the case, due to the proximity of the house to the protester's own residence. Nothing wrong with that - except that this personal interest was not declared!

The other case concerns the de-scheduling of a house in St Julian's so that it could be demolished and rebuilt. In this case the interest of the people accusing MEPA of abuse of power because of this de-scheduling is blatantly evident. It is certainly not inspired by disinterested love for our country's architectural heritage.

Following almost on the heels of an innumerable amount of press reports on these two stories - but totally unconnected to them - we have now also been told that the Housing Authority is going to give a helping hand with urban regeneration by purchasing dilapidated property in built-up areas and redeveloping the sites for social housing purposes.

I do not blame the average Maltese newspaper reader if he/she concludes that MEPA is being too soft on people wanting to demolish old buildings as it considers urban regeneration to be a vital element of its vision. My experience - through my professional practice - on how MEPA tackles this issue leads me to conclude that the truth, alas, is otherwise.

MEPA has its own 'in-house' advisory committee on old buildings known as the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) that is entrusted to give the Planning Directorate advice on matters that impinge on the preservation of old buildings. There is nothing wrong with MEPA having a body of experts to advise it and make recommendations with regard to certain types of development permits.

This committee has no legal standing, as it is not a statutory body resulting from law and therefore it can only make recommendations to MEPA's Planning Directorate. In practice, however, the recommendations of the HAC are becoming automatically the Planning Directorate's recommendations. Frequently, these become negative recommendations against the development applied for.

The cases where the HAC has recommended that existing buildings or façades of existing buildings should not be demolished are too many to number. This attitude is applied also to buildings outside Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs) and is hindering practically all private initiatives for urban regeneration.

I do not believe that there is any other country in Europe that systematically prohibits demolition of existing buildings across the board in the same way that the HAC has practically been indirectly empowered to do. In other countries, it is normal for old buildings that are not scheduled to be replaced with new ones - usually provided that the new replacement is made in a way that is sensitive to the context of the area where it is built.

I am not, of course, referring to historic town centres - that are all scheduled in any case. I am simply referring to the regeneration of dilapidated urban areas that can be given a fresh lease of life with sensible and sensitive redevelopment.

I know of cases in areas such as Msida, Pietà and Gzira that had been developed before or just after World War II, where MEPA's HAC is insisting on this policy. Not even adapting the style of the old existing building - so that the new one is not incongruous - will satisfy the HAC's whims.

In another case I know of, a small façade outside the UCA boundaries of Rabat has been deemed worthy of preservation in spite of the fact that this façade has absolutely nothing worth preserving - its walls have been painted in enamel paint of a horrible hue, that I refer to as 'baby pooh' colour; its only window has been fitted with metallic gold colour aluminium 'louvres'; and the front door steps (one of which is an obstruction in the pavement) have been clad with matt grey ceramic tiles.

In this case, the existing façade includes a number of the sort of kitschy details that MEPA rightly seeks to curb: hence the HAC's recommendation borders on the Kafkaesque. Yet the Planning Directorate dares not throw this recommendation in the waste paper basket, where it deserves to be thrown.

People will move back to the abandoned old town centres only if they find attractive residential units with modern amenities in these areas. Private enterprise can no doubt do a lot in this direction, only if unnecessary hassles and obstacles are removed. This can be achieved if the responsible MEPA officials act more sensibly and recognise that abandoning old dilapidated buildings for their fate is not an option.

If the Housing Authority initiative is going to be bestowed the same treatment meted out to private initiative, than the endeavours of the Housing Authority will probably be undermined by MEPA!

Incredibly, MEPA seems to act as if the importance of preserving old buildings of no real historic or architectural value supersedes the import that these buildings - or the space occupied by these buildings - being actually utilised rather than left in the state they are in!

What MEPA is doing in the case of urban regeneration is simply yet another example of an exercise resulting in this country's shooting itself in the foot.

micfal@maltanet.net