Thursday, 8th May 2008
FAA calls for revocation of permits issued on two Sliema houses
The house on Amery Street corner with Milner Street in Sliema.
While the Prime Minister reiterates his commitment to reform Mepa, the planning authority boards seem to keep ignoring him, the environmental NGO Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar charged yesterday, coming up with a list of fresh "irregular" permits.
Without naming names, the NGO's coordinator, Astrid Vella, said that recent research by the NGO revealed how a "politically-active" architect had recently seen all of his previously-refused 21 planning applications outside development zones approved at the appeals stage after having previously been refused twice.
"They didn't even have the decency not to overturn a couple to retain some credibility," Ms Vella said, reiterating her call for the authority's boards to be reconstituted immediately.
The problem at the authority was that the boards and the employees were being further demoralised by being made to carry the collective blame for the mistakes by the boards.
In this vein, she pointed out two houses in Sliema, one in Windsor Terrace and another in Amery Street, for which, she claimed, permits for full and partial demolition were issued respectively against Mepa policy.
The house in Windsor Terrace lies in the middle of a row of seven houses featuring typical post-war architecture and Maltese balconies.
The outline development permit was approved on appeal despite a call for refusal by the case officer and the first DCC board, which reviewed the case in 2006.
The permit now provides for the demolition of the house to be replaced by a block of 11 flats on four floors and a penthouse, Ms Vella said. The area is designated as a two-storey zone in the local plan.
Moreover, Mepa policy says that when there are three such consecutive houses on a street, they should be conserved, she added.
Miriam Cremona, a former Valletta Rehabilitation Project member, said NGOs would not need to get involved in cases such as the one on Windsor Terrace if Mepa did its job.
On the other house in Amery Street, which is scheduled for its architectural value, a permit was issued for its partial demolition (while retaining the façade) and the building of an additional floor following a recommendation for refusal by both the case officer and Mepa's heritage advisory committee.
In this case, Ms Vella called for the revocation of the permit on grounds that the architect, Michael Falzon, made a number of wrong declarations such as that there were no previous applications on this site when, in fact, there was one.
Mr Falzon, however, insisted when contacted, that there had been no attempt to hold back any information, pointing out that the planning process did take account of the previous application. Moreover, he said the two applications (he was only responsible for the second) were two worlds apart.
Ms Vella said the NGO had come across some 30 applications on scheduled property in which the architects did not mention the scheduling status of such properties.
She accused a "handful of architects of giving a bad name to their profession".
Ms Vella said that about 40 out of 60 enforcement notices issued recently ended up in the sanctioning of the illegal developments.
Mepa, last night strongly rebutted the claims, saying it regretted the fact that the media were "yet again being fed information riddled with inaccuracies and false accusations".
Mepa insisted that the decision taken on the Amery Street application respects height limitation and retains the house which the board considered merits retention nearly in its entirety. Contrary to the allegations, the house is not scheduled, Mepa noted.
The allegations about the Windsor Terrace application, approved on July 18, 2006, had already been rebutted by the DCC commission C board members in a letter to the press at the time.
Mepa added that it wanted to clarify that the Development Planning Act allows for boards to decide against the Directorate's recommendations. Decisions taken in the two cases in Sliema are in accordance with set procedures, it said.
RSS
Comments
Do I still see it through rose coloured glasses? No I don’t. I see it now as it is warts and all, but that doesn’t mean I love it less. Every year I go to Gozo and indeed to Malta itself I see changes, and when I’m back home I read about proposed developments and it makes me really sad. Why when there are tens of thousands of empty properties on the islands is it necessary to build more? Why are buildings left in disrepair like scars on the landscape? Why are projects like the villas at Ramla l-Hamra or the marina at Hondoq ir-Rummien even considered? The history and the architectural heritage of Malta and Gozo are being destroyed at an ever increasing rate simply because people with money want more money. I’m sorry, but I just find it disgusting.
It’s like seeing a child being hurt and your natural instinct is to protect the child. My natural instinct is to protect Gozo and Malta, but what can I do? That is why I thank God for organisations like FAA and wonderful dedicated people like Astrid Vella. In the 60’s we used to say, ‘I don’t know much about art but I know what I like’, well I know very little about Ms.Vella but I know that she loves her country and that she is doing everything in her power to protect it, and I thank her for that.
The problem with Mepa is not that they are getting it wrong, they’ve been doing that for years. The problem from their point of view is that because of NGO’s like FAA and people like Astrid Vella they are no longer able to get away with it.
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 I am ready to state under oath that 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 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 as they are obliged to do by MEPA regulations. This is not MEPA's shortcoming as it gave clear instructions in Circular to Architects 8/02 which also lists a similar obligation to declare all other applications on a site. Therefore Mr. Michael Falzon’s reply that he did not withhold information is contradicted by the application form where he struck through these two sections and signed to it. This is the basis for our call for invocation of Article 39A, citing “error on the face of the record”.
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 changes to part of the facade and total gutting of the house's unique interior hardly constitute 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 reason quoted in the Windsor Terrace case regarding masking an unsightly back façade of flats built behind the house, does not feature anywhere in MEPA's planning regulations. Similarly the Board gave an incorrect example in the Don Rua permits as they have a different height limitation and also because precedent is a legal but not a planning reason as required by the DPA. 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 in spite of Castille’s genuine commitment, this MEPA reform is nothing more than a hollow dream.
Astrid Vella