Wednesday, 7th May 2008 - 15:19CET
MEPA denies FAA's 'irregularities' claim
The Malta Environment Planning Authority this evening strongly denied claims of irregularities made earlier in the afternoon by the environment NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar.
The FAA had focused in particular on two houses, one on Windsor Terrace and another in Amery Street in Sliema for which, it said, permits for demolition or alteration were issued 'against Mepa policies'.
In a press conference FAA coordinator Astrid Vella said that at Windsor Terrace, MEPA had issued an outline development permit for the demolition of a house and its redevelopment into a block of flats, even though this house was set in the midst of seven old houses, with typical early post war architecture and Maltese balconies.
MEPA policy, Ms Vella insisted, laid down that when there were three such consecutive houses on a street, these should be conserved.
The Development Control Commission in question approved the application against the recommendations of the case officer, despite there being more houses and despite the area being a two-storey area.
Ms Vella added that the case of the house in Amery Street was potentially more serious in that both the heritage advisory committee and the board that approved part of its demolition recognised the architectural and heritage value of the property.
The board, however, had now approved the full development permit, which would allow the building of an additional floor on the property and demolish the house internally.
She said MEPA's boards remained riddled with such irregularities that went against the authority's own policies.
MEPA in its counter-statement said the FAA claims were "riddled with inaccuracies".
"Suffice to say that the decision taken on the Amery Street application respects height limitations and retains the house, which the Board considered to merit retention nearly in its entirety. Contrary to what was alleged, the house is not scheduled."
MEPA also pointed out that the allegations about the Windsor Terrace application, which was approved on 18 July 2006, had already been rebutted by the DCC commission C board members in a letter to the press at the time.
The Development Planning Act allowed boards to decide against the Directorate's recommendations, MEPA pointed out.
Furthermore, decisions taken in the two mentioned cases in Sliema were in accordance with set procedures.
RSS
Comments
When one is wandering around the islands one has serious doubts on how some developments do manage to a get a permit!!
Take for instance the Hondoq, Ta' Cenc and Ramla projects. Their applications should not have even been accepted, let alone being considered or in the Ramla Case granted permission.
If it wasn't for people like Astrid Vella (FAA) and other ngo's our country would be alot worse than what it is now. These people that have commented against Astrid, definitely do not know how HARD she works with her main objective to save what we have left.
Remember, the Save Gozo protest, where FAA where the main organisers. I am from Gozo and I know for a fact that Astrid is doing her utmost to save Hondoq bay and its natural unspoilt surroundings. If it wasn't for people like FAA and Moviment Harsien Hondoq, the developers would have had very smooth sailing.
Why was she banned from MEPA? Was it because MEPA was facing a tough critic? Or was it because she was telling the truth ? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it in regards to the Ramla permit? Who was correct MEPA or Astrid? Is she still banned?
I recommend that Astrid be given the "Gieh ir-Repubblika" medal for what she has done in such a short time.
Well done Astrid, to me you are a hero.
When one is wandering around the islands one has serious doubts on how some developments do manage to obtain a permit!
If it wasn't for people like Astrid Vella (FAA) and other ngo's our country would be a lot worse than what it is now. These people that have commented against Astrid, definitely do not know how HARD she works with her main objective being to save what we have left.
Take for instance the Hondoq, Ta' Cenc and Ramla projects. Their applications should not have even been accepted, let alone being considered (Hondoq) or in the Ramla Case granted permission.
Remember, the Save Gozo protest, where FAA where the main organisers. I am from Gozo and I know for a fact that Astrid is doing her utmost to save Hondoq bay and its natural unspoilt surroundings. If it wasn't for people like FAA and Moviment Harsien Hondoq, the developers would have had very smooth sailing.
Why was she banned from MEPA? Was it because MEPA was facing a tough critic? Or was it because she was telling the truth ? Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it in regards to the Ramla permit? Who was correct MEPA or Astrid? Is she still banned?
I recommend that Astrid be given the "Gieh ir-Repubblika" medal for what she has achieved in such a short time.
Well done Astrid, to me you are a hero.
Such attitudes on the part of DCC members most certainly do not build trust in mepa procedures and DCC deliberations.
Mepa would do well to publicly explain whether or not the resort to whispering by DCC members during meetings held in public is permissible under mepa/DCC regulations.
The long-suffering and increasingly concerned public awaits.
As rightly pointed out in comments above, the powers granted to DCC to 'decide against Directorate's recommendations' are obviously intended as a last resort CORRECTIVE measure where it is seen that existing policies have failed to safeguard the objective for which such policies were laid. A fairly recent case being the permit issued by mepa for the construction of a cement plant in an archaeologically and environmentally sensitive area, which decision was only reversed by the direct intervention of Parliament.
DCC is bound to put publicly forward valid reasons for overturning recommendations for project refusal. Rather than resorting to glib statements such as "Furthermore, decisions taken in the two mentioned cases in Sliema were in accordance with set procedures." Mepa response should set out chapter and verse the reasons that justified DCC's decision to sanction destruction of the architecturally important buildings under review in the face of repeated recommendations to the contrary by the very bodies that are there to ensure that mepa acts in a responsible manner where the environment is concerned.
The public deserves no less, continued failure on the part of mepa to do so will only serve to further undermine whatever vestige of credibility that mepa may still have after the ongoing series of illogical decisions by DCC.
-----------
I will therefore illuminate him that in fact I have had two opportunities to develop property which I turned down, therefore I can't imagine what gives him the gall to speak for me on such a subject.
I would also add that FAA has rarely spoken on the subject of Sliema lately for, as residents can vouch, we have been taken up with issues in B'bugia, M'scala, Fgura, Attard, Balzan, Lija, St. Paul's Bay, Mgarr, Mellieha and Qala, Gozo. Are those enough villages to keep him happy?
Unfortunately it seems that this is becoming the rule rather than the exception. The Directorate represents the professionals; those that have studied the finer details of the case from the time it was submitted as an application to the point where it is presented to the Boards for a decision. On the other hand, the members of the boards are generally non-professionals, part-timers, mainly government officials who sometimes do not even know what case they are going to decide upon on the day.
By default , decisions should go in favour of the Directorate's recommendation, and only in exceptional cases should the boards decide to overrule the Directorate's recommendation, and with clear, strong justification for doing so.
Following your line of though, probably the rape of Sliema started with the building of the Preluna.
Then it was intensified some twenty years later by the demolishing of the Edwardian houses along in Tower Road in the late eighties and early nineties blessed by the lesser of the two evils of a Government.
Then when all the close friends of that Government had their stomachs full, the Government then authorized the formation of MEPA for the citizens of this Banana Republic!
The Windsor Terrace houses are in fact probably turn-of-the century and are a very rare example of a row of identical houses, seven in all, which are still intact, which is why the street has a high B+ MEPA category rating. In fact until a short while ago, the row used to be encircled by a blue conservation line on the MEPA Mapserver which mysteriously disappeared when the issue of this application was raised.
As regards the 30 applications that we mentioned on properties that are officially scheduled, we raised the issue that the applications do not declare that the sites are within the Urban Conservation Area and still less that they are scheduled properties. This is not MEPA's shortcoming and we called for more responsibility in this matter.
While the MEPA spokesperson says that the height limitations are being respected, re the Amery Street house, MEPA's Heritage Advisory Committee indicated that the construction of additional floors would aesthetically disrupt and have an adverse effect on the streetscape on both sides of the streets. Besides the Committee noted that this was also the decision of the Appeals Board on a previous application on the same site, stating that "In this respect, the proposal cannot be favourable considered."
As for the above claim that the house is to be retained "nearly in its entirety" I hardly think that changes to part of the facade and total gutting of the house's unique interior constitutes preservation "nearly in its entirety". Strangely enough the DCC even contradicted its own previous verdict:
4) DCC Site Inspection No. 10802207 held on 2nd October, 2007
“Corner house is in a good condition and has an interesting internal layout which merits retention" while the Heritage Advisory Committee indicated that "demolition of the building is not considered as acceptable".
While MEPA's boards are allowed to decide against the Directorate's recommendations, they are obliged by the same Development Planning Act to "register in the relevant file the specific planning reasons" justifying the reasons for their decision. The reasons quoted in the Windsor Terrace case do not feature anywhere in MEPA's planning regulations. As the Auditor said, the DCC Boards are there to abide by MEPA regulations and not to create them, which is what we maintain happened in this case. It is the Board's failure to quote the "Specific planning reasons" which prompts us to call for the rescinding of this permit.
It is well known and understandable that if this house is built up, whole block will follow suit, destroying one of Sliema's few treasured intact streetscapes. The Government has expressed itself strongly in favour of sustainable development. Is the destruction of our heritage sustainable? Is it worth losing jobs in tourism and undermining neighbours' health for a few months of employment in construction to add more apartments to our total of around 65,000 vacant units?
If MEPA is really committed to its mission statement "that together we should carefully plan so that our heritage, this gem which we treasure, will not fade away." it will heed our call and review both of these highly destructive permits. If MEPA is not prepared to investigate these permits which both run counter to Directorate and HAC recommendations,as well as Appeals decisions on previous permits, we will know that this MEPA reform is nothing more than a hollow dream.