Saturday, 10th May 2008
Is Mepa reform just a hollow dream?
With regard to Mepa's claims of misinformation, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar would like to confirm that in our recent press conference we did not say that the Amery Street house is scheduled (protected), however, in highlighting the house's heritage value, we quoted Grade 2 conservation regulations, which might have given the impression that the house is scheduled.
It has now been confirmed to us that the house is not going to be totally gutted as had been thought. This information on change to plans demanded by the DCC board was not made available to us in spite of all our efforts to acquire it in the days before the press conference. It is disgraceful that in spite of Minister George Pullicino's and the Prime Minister's pledges and best efforts, Mepa is still blocking NGO access to plans online which would guarantee up-to-date and correct information. NGOs are not asking for a privilege, but a right of access to information which is already available at the Mepa front desk, a right which was, incidentally, also promised to members of the public.
We however reiterate that Michael Falzon failed to declare all previous applications on the site, as well as its location in an urban conservation area in the application form, as he is obliged to do according to Mepa Circular to Architects 8/02. We observed similar omissions on no fewer than 30 applications related to scheduled sites, applications which conveniently fail to mention that the sites are within the urban conservation area, and still less register the scheduled status of the sites. FAA maintains that omissions such as these, and especially the failure to register the full address of the site to be developed, severely curtails the public's right to be informed, and that applications with such serious shortcomings should be immediately annulled and permits rescinded.
In the other case we tackled, the Windsor Terrace houses are a very rare example of an intact row of seven identical turn-of-the century houses, which is why the street has a high B+ rating.
I am ready to state under oath that until a short while ago, the row used to be encircled by a blue preservation line on the Mepa Mapserver, which line mysteriously disappeared when the issue of this application was raised.
Again, both the case officer and the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) argued vehemently against this permit; 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 their decision. The reason quoted in the Windsor Terrace case, that the flats would mask an unsightly backdrop, 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 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 obvious that if this house is built up, a 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 this highly destructive permit. If Mepa is not prepared to rescind this permit which runs counter to directorate, HAC and Appeals Board recommendations, we will know that in spite of Castille's genuine commitment, this Mepa reform is nothing more than a hollow dream.
RSS
Comments
What I said was that all citizens have the right to enjoy their property, including building on, rebuilding and altering their property, after obtaining permits from the COMPETENT AUTHORITIES and ACCORDING TO LAW with DUE PROCESS.
What I was criticising was the fact that some self-proclaimed defenders of the environment – who are NOT the competent authorities – now expect to have a veto on another citizen’s application for a permit.
They do so NOT with the due process within Mepa but throught the press – in a way which is very similar to mob courts. And they use methods very much outside the remit of what is just and fair, ie attacking the architect personally in the press, publishing photos in the press and disseminating half truths in the press.
This has become too much and not at all the proper and fair way to do such things. That is what I criticised.
I would like to reply to Mr Camenzuli and my namesake George Debono and just raise one point:
Of course everybody has the right to build/develop his own property but this right to build/develop property is not absolute because it has to be within MEPA regulations and sanitary laws.
Thus a plot of land outside the development zone cannot be developed. Neither can a two-floor house in an Urban Conservation area be converted to a multi-story block of flats higher than what is established in the Local Plans.
If property owners had an absolute right to build anything on their property, there would be mayhem and all of Malta would be up for grabs so that not much of Malta would survive the free-for-all. Residents of narrow streets would be buried in unhealthy dark and airless canyons flanked by eight and twelve-storey blocks on either side. Gardens would become a thing of the past, the foreshore and even public gardens (which sometimes fall into private hands) would be built up.
What FAA is on about is that MEPA’s processing of applications has to respect regulations and be consistent with all applicants. I’m sure that even Messers Camenzuli and Debono agree with FAA on that principle, which unfortunately is not always upheld.
George G Debono
If you have a property and apply for a permit, out come all these same people who have access to the media and make an issue out of your own property in the papers and publish photographs of your property and put pressure on the authorities not to issue the permit.
The regulations of MEPA already allow these people to oppose your permit in meetings of MEPA but they come out and make a big issue out of your application and even attack your architect in the press.
And now there are people who have built in the past on their land and if you have a piece of land next to them they expect you not to build so that they can enjoy the open views over your property.
It really has become too much.
As for the comments of M. Camenzuli, you talk about the purveyance of half-truths and interference with the application process outside the remit of what is allowed by law. You appear to be confused here, isn’t that what Mepa do? You then call for these NGO’s to lead by example and campaign for policies that apply for ALL (including themselves). You’ve lost me there probably along with the rest of the country!
What you both have to remember here is that up until recently Mepa has been a law onto themselves. Some of the decisions, which have come from Mepa, have been bordering on criminal, certainly from the point of view of protecting the environment, which is after all, part of their remit. I’m not writing this in order to bash Mepa, and as all the NGO’s have pointed out at some stage there are a lot of very professional and very committed people working within the authority. Having said that I for one feel a lot happier knowing that there are people in Malta who are willing to guard the bastion so to speak and ensure the regulations are adhered to. You should be too.
Here is what some-one who has nothing to gain or lose commented on having seen the ongoing destruction of our the environment and of our heritage.
Comments
James A. Tyrrell (1 day, 12 hours ago)
I would like to comment here from a tourist's point of view if I may. I come to Malta every year and spend a few weeks on Gozo. The first time I was there I saw it through the rose coloured glasses of a visitor and by the end of my two weeks I’d fallen in love with the place. I now return every year and hopefully will continue to do so. My dream would be to retire to Gozo but whether I will ever be able to afford to do that is another matter. I’m saying this so people will know just how I feel about the island.
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.
Unfortunately, property owners nowadays not only have to run the gauntlet of ( H U G E ) Mepa red tape, but also of self proclaimed defenders of the heritage who invade citizens' privacy, publish photos of others' properties, purvey half truths, interfere with the application process outside the remit of what is allowed by law, attack personally the architects involved and expect to have a veto on each and every application they disapprove of.
This has now become too much!
These self-proclaimed defenders of the environment should first of all lead by example. After they do, they should then campaign with the authorities for policies that apply for ALL (including themsleves), in ALL areas of Malta (including where they live) and without invading others' privacy and the right of others to apply for and get permits according to law.