Bash the well-intentioned, ignore the abuser

The Sunday Times has carried two articles on sustainable development and urban regeneration which make interesting reading.

In the first article (April 2), Ray Bezzina, communications co-ordinator of the Ministry of the Environment, assures us that Government's holistic view is based on public consultation.

Why is it, then, that Government pronounced itself in favour of both the Xaghra l-Hamra golf course and the Qui-si-sana entertainment centre/car park in spite of the public outcry against them? Why is it that after their requests for a public consultation went ignored for months, Qui-si-sana residents were only granted a public consultation meeting after the government got a trouncing at the Sliema council elections?

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted Minister Pullicino's mention of job creation as referring to the construction industry, but the fact is that until recently it was the only sector where development was creating jobs (many for non-Maltese). It never even crossed my mind that he could be referring to tourism, as, far from creating tourism jobs, the sort of 'development' we're seeing at present is exactly one of the factors destroying our tourist industry - ask Joe Preca of the Preluna Hotel, whose view has been embellished by a Polidano crane for three years!

Although Minister Pullicino did not utter the precise sentence I used to summarise his article, still "sometimes heritage and the environment have to be sacrificed to development" was the general message given by his long piece, which I cannot reproduce here to prove my point.

As for his assertion that the planning system works well, I am by no means judging the system on just the Ghar il-Lembi Street case. I invite readers to judge on the scandalous decision to replace the landmark Duke of Edinburgh Hotel by a multi-storey modern commercial/residential block, so out of place in Victoria's main road lined by handsome old houses leading up to the Citadel.

The demolition of Baroque houses in the Floriana UCA and, above all, the MEPA permit to demolish Qala School, which was so roundly slammed by MEPA's own Auditor, are proof enough that, contrary to Minister Pullicino's conviction, all is not well at MEPA. If only ours were, as Mr Bezzina claims, "one single flawed case"! Contrary to Michael Falzon's claims (April 9) that the decisions of MEPA's heritage boards are automatically adopted by MEPA's DCC boards, in the above cases the boards' decisions calling for preservation were totally ignored. No doubt this happens regularly.

We will however, continue to use the house at 1, Ghar il-Lembi Street, as a test case, as so many MEPA regulations, not to mention a police law, have been broken in granting its permit, that it sets a dangerous precedent for all Malta. Developers have been phoning MEPA and visiting the site to obtain details to use it to secure their applications which have been refused. The implications for Maltese heritage are enormous. It is only people like Mr Falzon who say we have blown it out of proportion, having an architect's interest in seeing it in isolation, and not as part of a larger picture.

Our newly-formed group Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar applauds Minister Pullicino for pointing out in Parliament that aspects of MEPA should be improved, but what has been done about the situation when crucial flaws have been pointed out for years?

Fast forward to Mr Falzon in The Sunday Times of April 9. In spite of admitting that he has not gone into the merits of the Ghar il-Lembi house case, he makes his opinion very clear when he says it was "alleged" to be an important building - how professional is that if he knows nothing of the case? On the other hand, he knows enough to say that I live close to the house, a fact he says I never declared... except on every television station of the land!

Since Mr Falzon missed these statements, let me state clearly in print: I live half-way down the street, where I cannot even see the house in question. Any development there does not block my view or inconvenience me in any way. I assure Mr Falzon that my only alleged "personal interest" in this case is Sliema's heritage.

I fail to see the point of Mr Falzon's insinuations, other than the wish to discredit anyone who speaks out. Next he'll be echoing the ex-Sliema mayor in accusing me of not preventing my great-aunt's husband from demolishing the house that stood where I now live... which went down when I was still a toddler! I've heard of sins of the fathers visited upon the children, but sins of the great-aunt's husband! These are the lengths to which our government mouthpieces go to harm the reputation of any perceived opposition.

Mr Falzon could have reported instead that my husband and I bought a very old farmhouse in an area with permits for six flats plus a penthouse and rather than demolishing it, we are restoring it to its former glory.

Instead of wasting their time on such pettiness, why don't Messrs Bessina and Falzon speak out against the real "personal interest" - the scandal of the case, i.e. the fact that the developer's architect sat on both MEPA boards (HAC and DCC C) which his client's application passed through? A clear case of conflict of interest, which we have pointed out time and again, but on which government spokespeople are strangely silent.

If they do bother to reply to this question, I hope they won't regurgitate the sickening excuse that architects withdraw from the board in such instances, when everyone knows that this withdrawal is farcical, as all that happens is that the architect simply steps back a couple of paces from the table and continues to follow proceedings from there; so much for withdrawal!

Why don't they report on the strange fact that a house of no architectural or historic merit up the pavement from the house at Ghar il-Lembi Street was made to retain its façade, in accordance with UCA parameters, while one that had five constituted bodies calling for its preservation was completely demolished? A hint: could the fact that the first is being rebuilt by its humble owner and the latter by a developer have something to do with it? These are the sort of abuses that prove that MEPA is not working as it should and that are causing such an outcry the length and breadth of Malta.

I can well understand Mr Falzon's feeling that certain areas do merit reconstruction; however, I am very wary of labelling houses "dilapidated". Anti-preservation writers including a certain Stephen Micallef cavalierly wrote off the Ghar il-Lembi house as being dilapidated in spite of the fact that its roofs and walls were intact (I have photos to prove it) and all it needed was conversion and a lick of paint.

I can't understand how people like Mr Falzon refuse to admit that, once restored, many of the properties he rubbishes could become the "attractive residential units with modern amenities" that he calls for. If even the Housing Authority is admirably embarking on such a project, why is Mr Falzon so negative? Could the reason be that both architects and developers have much more to gain from demolition and reconstruction, rather than restoration?

As for Mr Falzon's many references to what he terms "Heritage Advisory Board whims", we are sure that, once external pressure is excluded, the HAC gives very studied judgments. However, we are not in a position to comment further as, unlike Mr Falzon, ordinary Maltese citizens are illegally denied access to their reports.

I say "illegally denied" because Malta has signed the Aarhus Con-vention, pledging that: "Each Party shall ensure that, subject to the following paragraphs of this article, public authorities, in response to a request for environmental information, make such information available to the public... including, where requested... copies of the actual documentation containing or comprising such information. Article 4.1 of the Aarhus Convention."

As things stand, at MEPA one is not even shown the case officer's report (available on the MEPA Website) unless one makes a stand and pronounces the dreaded words "Aarhus Convention", let alone be able to read any of the MEPA boards reports, paid for by public funds.

Both Mr Falzon's and Mr Bezzina's insinuations that my interpretation of the house's architectural value was incorrect are serious slurs on MEPA's Heritage Management Committee and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, whose conclusions and calls for preservation concurred with mine; however, we have become used to such treatment.

Although I know it has become standard practice to try to denigrate and discredit any voice of dissent, I'd like to ask whether it is Mr Bezzina's remit to waste his time and therefore the public's tax money in pouring scorn on well-intentioned members of the public.

Incidentally, in the Aarhus Con-vention the Maltese government pledges that environmental activists shall not be "persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement". Maybe I should post a copy to Mr Bezzina to refresh his memory.

Malta must be the only country in the world where it is the very environmental authorities who do their best to silence environmental voices and NGOs. Sadly, it is yet another indicator of whose side they are on.

Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar has been set up to save Malta's rural and urban heritage. Their Website is: www.ambjentahjar.org.