Thursday, 24th July 2008 - 13:13CET
Anger over MEPA decision to demolish townhouses
Representatives of the Sliema local council and environmental NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) this morning voiced their concerns at MEPA’s decision allowing the demolition of a series of six neighbouring townhouses to build apartments and underlying garages.
FAA spokesperson Astrid Vella questioned the transparency of the MEPA board, that approved the demolition of the houses – situated on Milner and Howard Street in Sliema - after the authority's Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) advised against it.
She explained how the project application had initially been rejected by MEPA because the houses were within the urban conservation area (UCA). However, when the local plans were issued, the houses were withdrawn from the UCA even to the astonishment of MEPA's HAC that said in its minutes “the committee thought it was strange that the zone where the buildings lie was withdrawn from the UCA”.
Ms Vella explained that the developer filed a second MEPA application, now that the buildings were cleared from the UCA, and the project was approved.
“This rings alarm bells,” she said as she insisted that a heritage building need not be in the UCA to be protected.
She added that, according to regulations on heritage protection, grade two buildings (as these buildings were) would only be subject to sensitive alterations in-keeping with the character of the building.
Demolition, she pointed out, was far from “sensitive”.
Ms Vella also stressed that the approval of the project was not subject to energy efficiency regulations and climate change safeguards as requested by law. When she asked the DCC chairman about such regulations, she was told that energy efficiency tests would be assessed after construction.
“This is a mockery and clear infringement of EU regulations,” she said.
She stressed that FAA was not against development as such but it opposed anything that broke the law. Local councillors present said that they unanimously voted against the development. Michael Briguglio said that the local council was a registered objector and were considering appealing the MEPA decision.
Comments
"Repeat: "THIS WOULD BRING THE LOSS OF ANOTHER GROUND OF TOWNHOUSES WHICH HAS BEEN DECORATING THE STREETS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY." (NOT "a quarter of a century")
A measure of a good argument is not how much interest the person has in the matter, but whether or not the stated facts support the point being made. You say that "there must have been reasons why MEPA reached the decision it reached" yet you do not say what those reasons were. Perhaps that's because you don't know?
It is about sticking to one's principles.
It is about questioning the sudden U-turn by MEPA.
It is about protecting the little that's left of the real Sliema.
Everybody has a right to do the same, M Camenzuli, but unfortunately most people think too much about their own pockets to put principles first..
My first comments against the obliteration of that part of the national architectural heritage that is Tas-Sliema were made twenty-five years ago when a wave of destruction was unleashed on the buildings along Tower Road and encroaching into Dingli Street and my standpoint on the matter has remained unchanged over the years. So how are those same objections 'weakened' on the basis that site now due to be swept away forever happens to be next to my property?
Your suggestion for the 'addition of more storeys and retaining the facades' shows that you have missed the crux of the argument completely. All the buildings affected qualify for protection against demolition and structural modification as they embody characteristics qualifying them as Grade 2, as confirmed by MEPA Heritage Advisory Council and by that same DCC that suddenly forgot its own declaration to that effect.
I truly hope that public opinion against the demolition will make the powers that be reverse the decision.
As Corinne Vella addressed Alex Vella: " How does being a neighbour weaken one's argument, when that argument is based on documented MEPA policies and documented decisions taken by the same organisation? No counter argument here has taken the same approach.
What M. Camenzuli, Alex Vella, and others of their ilk consistently fail to do is to explain how and why the location of residence of a commentor affects the vailidity of the comment made, particularly, when similar comments have been registered by residents hailing from different districts since the issue here does not involve 'a house next door', but is an issue that has been the subject of escalating public concern at the ongoing destruction of our national architectural heritage.
And where do YOU personally stand on that M. Camenzuli and Alex Vella, for your comments so far amount to nothing more than an attempt to cloud the issues involved?
On the other hand, it is now clear that many of the posts here are by the
the immediate neighbour of this development
and other members of his family -
as they themselves made clear in recent posts here.
One fully understands that these three members
of the same family have every right to defend
their personal interest in this issue.
I have no problem at all with any of these persons and the
other members of this same family.
I would rather not argue with anyone who has such a
personal interest in an issue, let alone with a whole such family.
I’m therefore stopping my posts regarding this issue.
With much respect to the persons involved.
(Extract from DPA Report for Case Number PA01218/06 - original application for permit for same site by same people
- Continued)
The architectural grammar of the site relates with the adjacent buildings in terms of rhythmic and stylistic character, typical of traditional streetscapes, and particularly important in this stretch of the street. The importance of the streetscapes and their conservation is emphasised in the Structure Plan particularly in Policies UCO 8 and UCO 10, which seek to preserve and protect their character.
For the above reasons, the redevelopment of this site into an apartment block would runs counter to the conservation policy relating to Milner street and Howard Street. One should take into consideration that the demolition of the facades of both Milner Street and Guze' Howard Street would have a negative effect on the streetscape of both street. This would bring the loss of another ground of townhouses which has been decorating the streets for more than a century."
Repeat: "THIS WOULD BRING THE LOSS OF ANOTHER GROUND OF TOWNHOUSES WHICH HAS BEEN DECORATING THE STREETS FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY."
Unfortunately, not everybody shares the same views, but seeks to put their own gains first.
(Extract from DPA Report for Case Number PA01218/06 - original application for permit for same site by same people
- Continued from previous comment)
"As such the proposed demolition and the construction of a five-storey block would aesthetically disrupt and have an adverse impact on the streetscape when seen as a whole. In this respect, the demolition of the building and the construction of a five storey block with an overlying penthouse should not be tolerated.
This side of Milner street and of Howard street is still completely composed of the old traditional terraced houses, preserved, renovated and occupied for residential purposes where with the proposed demolition and the construction of a five storey block, would completely ruin the appearance of the block and the streetscape when seen as a whole.
The designation of UC Areas acknowledges their importance in terms of cultural heritage, particularly in view of their historical, architectural and environmental characteristics. The need for particular consideration and adequate design treatment in development proposals in these areas are further stressed in various Structure Plan and Local Plan Policies related to the conservation of buildings and areas forming an important part of our built heritage.
(More on next comment)
You seem to have missed this out, so I'm reproducing it here to drive the point home:
...here's some food for thought, extracted from the DPA Report for Case Number PA01218/06 (The ORIGINAL appliciation for the same site, by the same people):
"Through consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee, it was indicated that the existing dwellings have a considerable architectural value which should be preserved. Therefore the proposed demolition of the building cannot be favourable acceptable.
Directorate's Comments:
The Committee should note that the existing buildings on both sides of the street are located in a row of similar two-storey terraced townhouses all having decorative and architectural features were no visual intrusion has been created so far on this stretch. These buildings, except the last on Milner street, share a common cornice above the first floor which contribute well with the characteristics of the building and of the streetscape when seen as a whole. "
(Continued on next comment, due to lack of space)
...and where were YOU on that day? Following M Camenzuli's / Johnathan Farrugia's / Philip Zammit's dictum that one should not object should one happen to live next door to the project, perhaps?
More to the point, now, where do YOU stand with regard to the sanctioning of the destruction of a significant part of our [and that includes you] architectural heritage by the very body that is primarly there to safeguard that heritage?
If, indeed, you feel so badly about such matters, stop griping about the past and put your own effort into stopping the vandalism fest that has taken hold.
- all buildings affected by the project, together with a further three adjoining houses down Milner Street embody architectural features and other characteristics that puts them clearly at Grade 2 level under which only minor and sensitive modification is permissible and DEMOLITION IS PROHIBITED;
- that factor was recognized and confirmed by their original inclusion in Sliema UCA;
- that factor was recognized and re-confirmed by Mepa itself in its report on PA1218/06 and was the basis upon which that application was refused unanimously by DCC;
- no justification or explanation has been forthcoming from the authorities concerned as to how and why the site was removed from Sliema UCA;
- that Heritage Advisory Committee reconfirmed Grade 2 status and SAW the removal from UCA as 'strange'
- PA1218/06 and PA06269/06 were processed practically together, with Mepa unanimously refusing the former application that sought to retain the facades, but then approving the latter application calling for the total obliteration of the buildings with DCC at minimum quorum and 3 members absent.
You may not be quite accurate, however - Many "neighbours" (not necessarily of this site, but possibly also of other sites in a similar situaton) might actually be pleased to get a pretty penny for their own property, which is why there are probably several pro-demolition people here on this blog who - ironically - have not been honest about their TRUE interest in the matter.
M Camenzuli - Surely logic should prevail, rights or no rights? You seem to have learnt out of a text book only, and don't seem to be applying much logic in this case.. Things are very different in the real world, you know. Do you get out much?
Yes, of course everyone's got rights, the developer included. But, more importantly, so does an objector, who has:
the right to make his case heard
the right to hear properly at the so-called "hearing"
the right to being able to ensure that NO LIES are included in the Directorate's Report, ones which mislead MEPA into thinking that all is OK when in actual fact it is not
Do you get the gist, M Camenzuli?
Are you still going to defend the developers' case?
In the sea of "hysterical" (their word, not mine) pro-demolition comments, yours is truly a welcome relief.
Many people seem to think that the fact that my parents live on the same block (and don't want to sell up) makes my opinion on the matter invalid or an "emotional" one. Likewise any comments from my father.
As for M Camenzuli, "James Attard", and the many others of their ilk - Well, their "anonimity" leaves them free to continue shooting a barrage of pro-demolition (or should I say anti-FAA?) comments. And yet, none of them have declared their TRUE interest in the matter.
'ugly gap' is also a subjective notion. Doesn't that contribute to an arbitrary decision?
"there is a clear prejudice against the developer/s." The objections expressed here mention the development, rather than the developers.
"Decrepit and empty houses are a clear signal that people don’t want to live in such houses" Maybe, maybe not. As I pointed out earlier, sometimes it's because the owner doesn't want to sell. That is the owner's right, but it does undermine your argument.
"I hold the opinion that when such decisions are made, they should: etc etc etc" And that opinion is upheld in fact. Permits are issued by MEPA and not by private individuals or organisations, though those same private individuals and organisations may lobby for decision-taking to follow an alternative route.That too is a right protected by law. It is the very one you are exercising here.
"procedures respecting the rule of LAW when decisions are made on development permits. "
The rule of law is not restricted to the rights of property owners. It also covers other matters, such as your right to object to objections which are themselves a right protected by the law.
If yours was a not-so-subtle reference to previous comments I've posted here, what I was stating quite clearly was that people (like you, seemingly) who come from places like Bugibba, for example (ie a hotch-potch of non-descript concrete and aluminium blocks), could not see anything wrong with such houses being demolished to be replaced by a carbon copy of their home.
How and why, should should a standpoint in favour of conservation of our national architectural heritage, and against the obliteration of same, be vitiated by the degree of proximity of the residence of the person posting that comment to the site in question?
Johnathan Farrugia - and all of your ilk - your elaboration on your standpoint should make interesting reading, particularly since the nature of your comment puts you firmly in the destructionist camp.
Giving us your general opinion about the principles to be followed when building applications are dealt with is all very well. The problem in this page is that you are talking in a general and detached way, but other people posting comments here are talking about their own particular problem with this particular development in their own particular neighbourhood. When you're the immediate neighbour of a huge development, you tend to see it differently. It's true that the authorities decide in a general way on general principles, but, as we would say in Maltese, 'kulhadd tieghu ihoss'. I do agree with yuo on one point though: everyone should declare their personal interest immediately in a blog, not talk as if one is an independent observer when one is actually personally involved.
Good of you MC to finally acknowledge that we, that is all who have a direct interest in the protection of the nation's architectural heritage, are taking our rights seriously; and also of you to call upon those who seek to denigrate our legitimate exercise of those rights to respect our right to do so.
No doubt the 'humble' developers and builders would have ended their working day by wiping their feet all over you, and you would have been delighted by the extra frisson that their action would have given you.
"Sliema Local Council have done the decent thing and are going to appeal this decision, which is the way we go about getting proper decisions in public institutions in a law-ruled country and which has been my point throughout. " Democracy is based on the INDIVIDUAL and on his right, among other rights, to express his personal opinion in a direct and open manner. Action by a Local Council or other body cannot, and must never, replace that individual right.
And there you go MC, what is it you have been banging on and on about here? was it something that you called RIGHTS?
I'm neither a developer nor an architect nor related at all to any. I have never asked for a development permit for anything and have no intention of doing so.
What I'm interested in is to make my point in a civilized and rational debate about property RIGHTS and procedures respecting the rule of LAW when decisions are made on development permits.
I hold the opinion that when such decisions are made, they should:
respect the fundamental property RIGHTS of owners,
treat everyone EQUALLY and similar circumstances UNIFORMLY,
be arrived at OBJECTIVELY and not emotionally or according to subjective likes and dislikes,
be made by PUBLIC institutions (not just organs/reports thereof) vested AT LAW to decide taking into account ALL submissions, including the owners',
put the burden of proof as to historic or architectural value clearly on those making such arguments,
NOT be made in a MEDIA FRENZY on people's doorsteps akin to mob courts,
nor by PRIVATE individuals or organisations or neighbours, however genuine they might be.
Rights are to be taken seriously by all and not just by those who have a direct interest.
WANTS (gold) are many. Needs are few.
Preserving GOZO is not enough! Why Gozo Only? I ask!
No, you do not have the right to pull down old town houses. By the same reasoning many old town houses in Germany Amsterdam London etc would be pulled down too. No way will the EU ever support such reasoning either.
This kind of destruction should NOT be allowed to continue just for the sake of Gold.
Like I said before - with Dr. Gonzi directly responsible for MEPA, if the demolishing rather than conversion/preservation of these town houses in Sliema and other Villages too is going to be allowed to continue - This is most definitely the beginning of the end of all Towns.
Gold - Figures for guidance only. Buy 2 houses 300K – build/sell 8 flats 85K each + underlying garages 8 @ 6000. Total cost 300K + 300K to demolish/build/finish. Tot SP 728K Profit before tax LM100, 000 minimum.
Also - Perhaps you know more and will kindly explain how MEPA changed its methodology over a period of a few months.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080730/local/gonzi-in-listening-mode-on-mepa-reform
Let us hope that the fact that the six houses in this case were originally in the original plans of the UCA and subsequently removed will be investigated too.
MEPA - Transparency indeed!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080730/letters/just-a-sitting-but-no-hearing
Yes, Dad, it is quite plain to see. As M Camenzuli would say, of course, he's got every right to do so, but he should clearly indiciate his intentions and his interest in the matter.
"Milner Street left hand side (going up to Scotts) - all built up to five or six storeys, except for these properties"
WRONG. Take a proper look.
Facing this block - several high-rise buildings.
WRONG - There's only Despott Mansions (1 whole ugly block), Lombard Bank/flats and yet another ugly block. ONE WHOLE BLOCK UP THE ROAD IS SOLELY HOUSES.
"Going into Howard Street from this corner - all high-rise except for the properties shown."
That should have read "going LEFT into Howard Street". The houses are clearly visible from the Amery Street / Howard Street corner, and Despott Mansions is the only high-rise building along that side.
This is all a high-rise block area of Sliema - simple.
WRONG. Say the FULL truth, or you will convince me all the more that you have got more than a personal interest in the matter.
I suggest that you stop talking through your right toe instead of through your mouth..
The fact remains, M Camenzuli, that these houses are a century old. Your argument simply doesn't hold water.
None of us know what was there in the first place. As for the current block, when my parents first moved into the house, they had a view of Ghar id-Dud from their garden. That should give you an idea of what "ugly third party wall" didn't (doesn't) belong on the block.
The Preluna has now become very much of Sliema, but that doesn't make the rest of the block any less worth preserving. To the contrary, it makes the house worth preserving all the more.
If you are referring to their sale by the PREVIOUS owners, you do understand that individuals stand no chance against developers' usually vast resources. Right?
When the Nicholsons (now Scotts) site was still Villa Bonici, an elegant low-lying house with a lovely garden, there was a whole furore.
I was one of the many who attended a "discussion" organised by Anglu Xuereb for Sliema residents at the Imperial Hotel. As you can imagine, many of the people there (including myself and my mother) objected very loudly to his "project", and rightly so.
His defence was "Jiena ha' nsebhilkhom tas-Sliema" and "anke ha' nizralkom is-sigar". Of course, that was his view of things.
He had the last word, of course, and built that ugly block, but then, my view is subjective, and in the eyes of many, he may have had a "right" to build it.
As for the trees he planted on the site ... Do go and take a look. What a joke, especially when he destroyed a garden to do so!
WE REALLY MUST SAVE WHAT IS LEFT OF THE SLIEMA THAT ONCE WAS.
AND MEPA MUST PULL ITS SOCKS UP, OTHERWISE THE WHOLE OF MALTA STANDS TO LOSE NOT JUST A FEW HOUSES, BUT POSSIBLY MUCH MORE.
Please stop trying to act like some innocent little soul, because it's all here on this blog.
Then again, maybe you've got too many placards with the words "rights" hanging before your eyes, and they are disturbing your vision somewhat.
And - lest some other vulture try to come up with any "revelation" - Corinne is a sister of mine. That, of course, does not diminish any opinion she expresses on the matter, but simply gives her a greater reason to appreciatewhat is about to be lost, only to be replaced by a concrete jungle.
.
"Their demolition is prohibited by law."
Maybe our self-appointed legal expert, M Camenzuli would like to offer his comments on that statement. (But we can rest assured that he'll say that the developers have rights, and all else have a right to object - No consderation being given to the fact, of course, that what is happening at MEPA seems to be more than slightly incorrect.)
Many of those who are commenting are obviously upset that their property will be next to a 'quarry' when the contractors pull down these houses and start digging the basement/garages. Months of irritation, I know from experience, but it will pass.
Then there will be the new building which will blot out some of the light, but less than you would think.
I found that having a good relationship with the contractors helps. If you're hostile, they get hostile, and no one gains anything. If you have a good relationship, it will work out for the better. If they advise you when it will be very noisy, etc, it can make a difference. And if they build faster, they put you out of your 'misery' quicker. They can be rough, but they're nice and they're only doing a job.
After it all, you will have new neighbours also. Some people say those who come from outside Sliema are 'hamalli'. Actually they can be quite nice and humble - a welcome change from the bossy know-it-alls.
(Extract from DPA Report for Case Number PA01218/06 - original application for permit for same site by same people
- Continued)
The architectural grammar of the site relates with the adjacent buildings in terms of rhythmic and stylistic character, typical of traditional streetscapes, and particularly important in this stretch of the street. The importance of the streetscapes and their conservation is emphasised in the Structure Plan particularly in Policies UCO 8 and UCO 10, which seek to preserve and protect their character.
For the above reasons, the redevelopment of this site into an apartment block would runs counter to the conservation policy relating to Milner street and Howard Street. One should take into consideration that the demolition of the facades of both Milner Street and Guze' Howard Street would have a negative effect on the streetscape of both street. This would bring the loss of another ground of townhouses which has been decorating the streets for more than a century."
Repeat: "THIS WOULD BRING THE LOSS OF ANOTHYER GROUND OF TOWNHOUSES WHICH HAS BEEN DECORATING THE STREETS FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY."
Unfortunately, not everybody shares the same views, but seeks to put their own gains first.
- Continued from previous comment)
"As such the proposed demolition and the construction of a five-storey block would aesthetically disrupt and have an adverse impact on the streetscape when seen as a whole. In this respect, the demolition of the building and the construction of a five storey block with an overlying penthouse should not be tolerated.
This side of Milner street and of Howard street is still completely composed of the old traditional terraced houses, preserved, renovated and occupied for residential purposes where with the proposed demolition and the construction of a five storey block, would completely ruin the appearance of the block and the streetscape when seen as a whole.
The designation of UC Areas acknowledges their importance in terms of cultural heritage, particularly in view of their historical, architectural and environmental characteristics. The need for particular consideration and adequate design treatment in development proposals in these areas are further stressed in various Structure Plan and Local Plan Policies related to the conservation of buildings and areas forming an important part of our built heritage.
(More on next comment)
@Joe Vella & everyone else: Meanwhile, here's some food for thought, extracted from the DPA Report for Case Number PA01218/06 (The ORIGINAL appliciation for the same site, but the same people):
"Through consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee, it was indicated that the existing dwellings have a considerable architectural value which should be preserved. Therefore the proposed demolition of the building cannot be favourable acceptable.
Directorate's Comments:
The Committee should note that the existing buildings on both sides of the street are located in a row of similar two-storey terraced townhouses all having decorative and architectural features were no visual intrusion has been created so far on this stretch. These buildings, except the last on Milner street, share a common cornice above the first floor which contribute well with the characteristics of the building and of the streetscape when seen as a whole. "
(Continued on next comment, due to lack of space)
What's your connection with the issue, Mr Degiorgio?
Let us hope that sense will prevail, and that he will do what he can to weed out the rotten apples that are obviously still in the MEPA applecart.
Regarding your constant harping on about the fact that I am emotionally involved, I've coincidentally just posted a comment to you to that effect ...
You've posted several comments here, however. Does that mean you are emotionally involved? If so, in what way and does it mean that your arguments are unsound?
As for the "ugly boundary walls", by your reasoning, should the Preluna be demolished to conform withe the rest of the block?
It seems that the part of your body you think with is not your brain.
This is not a 'No development at all costs' crusade, but against irresponsible development and the destruction of 'f'ine architectural heritage' even in flagrant contravention of regulations.
'Development' can be a necessary evil, but the point is that the fields/gardens that were built over 'less than a century ago' were constructed out of necessity, unlike the situation today when 28% of available residential properties are vacant and with no potential takers, and the buildings that replaced those fields are all architectural gems now forming part of our architectural heritage.
What is odd about the pro-destruction lobby is that in all cases they admit that the new buildings that have so far replaced the old are all 'ugly' and their 'solution' is to destroy the beautiful and potentially beautiful that is causing the ugliness of the new buildings to stand out. As Corinne Vella commented, a far better solution is to conserve and rehabilitate the existing buildings and so 'beautify' the area, rather than replace them with drab and dreary structures.
You accuse ME of diverting the argument?
What about declaring clearly when you comment that you have a direct personal interest in the issue ie that you will be the immediate next-door neighbour of the new block being proposed?
No one said your points would be any less valid simply because, if this project goes ahead, your house will be precisely next to the new building. But it would have helped to state it immediately you started commenting.
Sliema Local Council have done the decent thing and are going to appeal this decision, which is the way we go about getting proper decisions in public institutions in a law-ruled country and which has been my point throughout.
As an avid reader of the comments posted here, M. Camenzuli must be fully aware that objectors include the Sliema Local Council by unanimous decision, as well as numerous other individuals from various locations in Sliema and elsewhere who can in no way be seen as neighbours to the site in question.
It is quite plain that MC is following a pro-demolition and an anti-FAA agenda.
Milner Street left hand side (going up to Scotts) - all built up to five or six storeys, except for these properties shown here in the photo (the high blocks are not shown).
Facing this block - several high-rise buildings.
Going into Howard Street from this corner - all high-rise except for the properties shown.
This is all a high-rise block area of Sliema - simple.
Your interest in this is obvious - your parents' house will be exactly next to the building proposed. Nothing wrong in complaining - but your personal interest should be clear.
"the left (of Milner Street) ... is already built up, except for these properties."
WRONG AGAIN, Mr Abela. See above. It is NOT "except for these properties", since THERE ARE 3 OTHER HOUSES standing there.
You may kid the people who are not familiar with the area, but you are certainly not saying the truth.
If that is what you intended to say, then you're wrong here too. My parents' house and another two similar houses stand ON THAT SAME BLOCK. I can assure you, Mr Abela, that my parents' is to remain standing. (Unless, of course, the developer decides to "accidentally" destabilise it, as is known to have happened in at least 2 cases I can remember in Sliema, where both the owners of such houses, if I recall correctly, refused to sell up.)
"Going down Howard Street from Amery Street towards this corner, the gaudy boundary walls are a view to behold. "
Shall we demolish the Preluna and Dspott Mansions, then, Mr Abela, to conform with the streetscape? Hardly.
Lombard Bank was built pre-MEPA and before the UCA was even conceived. Rest assured, Mr Abela, that had they been in existence, then the house on the original site would still be standing today, having been designed, built and lived in, by the same architect who designed the row of houses on which my parents' stands.
(Continued above, due to lack of space)
"The block on which these six buildings are is ALL built up."
What do you mean by "built up"? Are there any fields in the area? This is Sliema, not Bahrija.
Oh, I get it! Maybe you meant all built HIGH up? (Could it REALLY be that you didn't express yourself properly, Mr Abela?)
(Continued above, due to lack of space.)
If owners don't want to sell their own property, that's fully their right.
What we are arguing here is about neighbours telling other owners in the vicinity what to do with their property.
Is there a centuries-old olive-grove here? Not at all.
Probably, it is these 'old' buildings that have gone up less than a century ago in place of fields, gardens and, perhaps, olive-groves!
In the comments about a letter you wrote to the Times about this issue today,
someone wrote:
" Amanda Mallia should have declared her immediate and direct interest as she used to live in a house visible in this photo, that is still owned by her family and that will be immediately next to the proposed development she is protesting against. "
Is it true?
Arbitrary decisions are those taken on the strength of the neighbours' emotion, for example, or on subjective notions of what makes a 'lovely row of houses' or even on the strength of a media frenzy.
That's why we all have rights, including property rights, and laws that apply equally to all administered by public institutions.
MEPA has many organs, including the HAC (advisory, by its own name) and the case officer (who is, as it were, the Devil's Advocate). But decisions are taken by the DCC and not by the HAC or the case officer. They can be appealed.
It's all very nice to 'beautify' and area - but at whose expense? The solution here and in similar cases is for these houses to be bought at the going rate and kept as a museum or something similar. That's one practical action the FAA could take. With the support it enjoys, collecting the money would be a cinch.
The olive grove is still where it was.
Another underlying theme is that this particular case is already a lost cause and one not worth bothering about. If so, why is anyone wasting their time on countering arguments favouring conservation?
You are invited to read through and compare the Case Officer and HAC reports - and related conflicting decision by DCC for PA01218/06 and PA06269/06 both of which refer to the same site and both of which are accesible on www.mepa.org.mt under Planning tab, and to then draw your own conclusions.
See my related comment to Peter Abela below. Conservation of the houses in question is justified by the relevant policies. The qualities of the buildings are such that their demolition is prohibited by law and they may only be subject to minor modification and that in a sensitive manner.
You are missing the point altogether. The UCA is there because the building are deserving of protection as part of our national architecural heritage and not the other way round.
The houses on the Milner/Howard frontage embody all of the qualities that justify conservation, whether or not these are within the UCA. That much is confirmed by Mepa case officer report and the related decision by DCC that none of the buildings in question should be demolished, but that they be protected from such fate. (PA01218/06 refers).
WHY the same DCC should have put all that aside when processing PA06269/06 and approving total demolition, which process ran in parallel to that for PA01218/06 remains unanswered.
Amanda Mallia
You are, as you said in one of your posts, truly vociferous.
But, just asking: which house exactly do/did you live in on this block? Is it one of the visible houses in the photo here?
If so (pending your confirmation), then you obviously have a direct interest in this issue as you will be the immediate neighbour of the proposed development.
As a direct neighbour, you would still have every right to comment but, having declared so clearly, others who read this page would be able to reach their own conclusions as to why this very keen interest.
Housing has a purpose which is very evident and it’s definitely not being a museum.
Decrepit and empty houses are a clear signal that people don’t want to live in such houses, however much we may like them to. Sliema is not a ‘crib’. It’s, rather, a big town with an increasing population.
Furthermore, new buildings need not be ugly. Some new relatively nicer and certainly higher buildings have replaced ugly decrepit old ones even in this area of Sliema.
In life, you always start from the facts. There are blocks and streets in Sliema that are all, or almost all, low-built. There’s an argument for preserving them as they are. Then there are blocks and streets that are mostly high-rise. There you have an argument for consistency and congruence. This one at issue is such a case, as can be seen from the photo itself.
In this case, there is a clear prejudice against the developer/s. However, developers are ultimately entrepreneurs that supply housing and that have the same rights and duties as other entrepreneurs in other lines of business. These are set down at law and not at other people/neighbour’s whims or media frenzies.
There is also a prejudice against ‘outsiders’, meaning people coming to live in Sliema from other areas. But Sliema was mostly built only around a hundred years ago or less and populated by former Valletta residents. They were ‘outsiders’ then, ‘insiders’ now. Today’s ‘outsiders’ will be ‘insiders’ in a generation or two.
For the last 25 years, we’ve heard the green mantra that we should go higher not wider, ie not build virgin land but, with an increasing population (we used to be 300,000, now 410,000) we should build higher with more storeys. But then, when it comes to going higher, we again hit an environmental snag.
Historic and architectural value in such cases needs to be proven. Someone might have lived on the block, so it has historic value for him/her. Someone might see it as ‘lovely’. But that’s subjective and personal. Deciding on the way other owners develop their property has to be objective and public.
The press conference “on-site” was the ultimate of hysterics: FAA using the owners’ own doorstep to whip up a media frenzy rather than lodging an appeal in front of the appropriate institution, ie MEPA or the Courts.
FAA cannot accept that the UCA changed. This was an objective appraisal of the fact that the block on which these properties lie is all built up, and the same side of the same street was also all built up quite recently.
Of course, you are an emotionally-involved neighbour and your stand is eminently understandable. Your stand not to re-build your own house on the same street is also commendable, I must say.
But decisions about building permits cannot be taken on the neighbours’ emotions or actions nor on subjective “it’s such a lovely row of houses” statements. They have to be taken on objective criteria, respecting property-owners' rights by public institutions at law.
This is why it’s wrong for FAA to, as you say, “put across their objections by resorting to a media conference” rather than appeal. Media frenzies on one-sided arguments are not the way decisions are taken in a free country where laws apply equally for all.
Which, of course, is not true at all.
The media conference called by FAA on site featured no 'hysterics', FAA presented its case in a factual manner, quoting regulations and policies that were infringed or ignored by mepa in connection with processing of PA06269/06. Sliema Local Council is also a registered objector to the project and Sliema Local Council members stood four-square with FAA and individual objectors throughout the conference and individual SLC members presented their own individual expressions of concern.
With regard to MC's reference to the existence of avenues of appeal within mepa that are available to objectors, MC could well ask himself why FAA, supported by Sliema Local Council , had to put across their reservations and objections by resorting to a media conference.
(I’ve done away with the Ms as you dislike it, and I do not mean any disrespect; I rather agree with your posts on other subjects)
Your many posts on this page make it ever clearer that you are so emotionally involved in this issue that you cannot be objective and factual.
You seem to dislike this term, but RIGHTS are to be enjoyed EQUALLY by everyone not at the whim of other people (or even the majority) but according to law and decided upon by public institutions.
You say that the law is an ass. (This is usually said by someone who has lost an argument.) Actually the law in a free society is the means that defends citizens from ARBITRARY decisions; precisely those decisions that are taken because of some subjective notion that a row of houses is ‘lovely’, or by emotional neighbours, or based on prejudice because the applicant happens to be a developer.
Your appeal for politicians to come in and reverse MEPA’s decisions goes against the basic notion of the rule of law. If that happens, we would have gone back to the days when building permits were decided upon by politicians.
No such case, indeed. What about the clear decision by DCC that flatly refused PA1218/06 for even partial demolition and ruled that the buildings should stand due to their architecural value, and the very strong opinion expressed by Mepa's own Heritage Advisory Committee that calls for the buildings to be protected against demolition and that the entire complex of 10 houses be included once again within the Sliema UCA, and the countless expressions of dismay by the public in general that the buildings are up for total demolition.
On Howard Street corner with Amery Street you have two-storey houses all the way to the next corner (in photo). But as you get nearer to this corner, you can see the block facing you all built up, except for these houses, and the rest of the side of Milner Street facing you also all built up (not in photo, to the right). That’s why it makes sense that these six houses be built up. We’re not talking Howard Street corner with Amery Street, we’re talking Howard Street (lower end, all built up) corner with Milner Street (the side facing away from the front, all built up).
Regarding your father, he’s obviously free not to build. But others are free to build according to the permits issued.
@Michael A Vella & Amanda Mallia
I know the area and the photo here is actually very flattering to the area. I appeal to all people commenting to go there and see for themselves. Howard Street next to the front is already all built up. Milner Street is all built up as well on the side of these houses. If and when these houses are developed, what comes in their place will be more habitable and will hide the ugly boundary walls of the other buildings towering over these houses.
Thanks for confirming that the left hand side of Milner Street is all 5- and 6-storey buildings, except these properties in question.
The block on which these six buildings are is ALL built up. Going down Howard Street from Amery Street towards this corner, the gaudy boundary walls are a view to behold.
In this case, I can see precisely why these properties were removed from the UCA – if you draw a line along Milner Street from Lombard Bank to Amery Street, the UCA should be obviously on the right from this corner and definitely not on the left which is already built up, except for these properties.
(5) Amanda Mallia (2 days, 22 hours ago)
Simon Alden - "Is it to change Sliema into a Bugibba lookalike?"
Without meaning to be of offence to anyone, just taking a look at the comments posted under the article on this link will show you that unfortunately, yes, that is what many people seem to prefer:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds
(4) Simon Alden (3 days, 5 hours ago)
Personally, I think its an absolute disgrace that MEPA continues to allow the steady demolition of every building of any character in Sliema and other localities. What is MEPA's "vision"?? Is it to change Sliema into a Bugibba lookalike? Because that is where Sliema is heading. This isn't a rhetorical question - what exactly is MEPA's vision for Sliema??? With every block of ugly flats going up instead of an old house we just continue to downgrade our island and are destined to leave our kids with a characterless shambles of a country that will leave them wondering how on earth we stood by and let it happen. Sliema was a great place to live...now it just pays tribute to the failure of government to protect the character and charm of the island from the legion of developers and related industry who are intent on making a quick buck without any respect for the country whatsoever. A case like this symbolises the failure of government so far to carry out a meaningful reform.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080725/local/mlp-demands-inquiry-into-sliema-townhouses-demolition-permit
(1) R. Camilleri (3 days, 10 hours ago)
and other ones bite the dust !!!!!! thank you MEPA for the continious defilement of our home town. I am asking this on the off chance that I get a reply... are any of the MEPA bigwigs residents of Sliema?????? wishful thinking that I will get an answer to that question..... Please, please leave Sliema alone...
(2) Simon Sullivan (3 days, 9 hours ago)
post-it for Dr Gonzi. get involved and do what's blatantly right !
(3) DVella (3 days, 7 hours ago)
It seems the time has come for this DCC Board to resign in disgrace just like the other one did a few months ago . . . what a farce!
Most people commenting here pro-demolition / anti-FAA seem to think that people who reason the way I do are seeing the whole case "emotionally" as opposed to "subjectively".
Apparently, having lived on the block makes my opinion on the matter invalid in their eyes
To the contrary, it gives me a better appreciation of the architectural wealth that is slowly eroding before our very eyes, only to be replaced by cumbersome, monstrous, non-descript concrete and aluminium blocks, or ones with congrous faux-Maltese balconies.
More worrying still, is the way it is being done SEEMINGLY within the confines of the law (on the face of it).
We are owed an explanation regarding the SUDDEN retraction of the said buildings from the UCA.
The fact that the very same people lodged an application for the same site whilst the first application was still going through appeal stage STINKS! Something (be it classified information or Monopoly money) must have wormed its way through somewhere along the line.
Yes, Lawrence Gonzi is known for taking unpopular decisions, but unfortunately, some things may be beyond his immediate control.
Let us hope that justice and reason will prevail.
Quite honestly I feel that this is worrying.
With Dr. Gonzi now directly responsible for MEPA, if the demolishing rather than conversion/preservation of these beautifull town houses in Sliema is going to proceed - I am afraid this is most definitely the begining of the end of Sliema.
It is quite true that some town houses are now dwarfed by tall buildings. So the reasoning seems to be, from what I read: Demolish all the shorter once - this way they are all brought in conformance.
Why not pull down those tall ugly buildings I ask?
If they proceed it can be said that by the same reasoning it follows that all remaining town house owners would have the right to do likewise - in fact no option really cause if you cannot beat them.....
Sliema was in the past the summer residence of the elite. It was beautifull and it is now being sold for Gold to those that are prepared to do anything for more Gold.
Dr. Gonzi never hesitated from taking unpopular decessions.
Sliema's destiny seems to be in his good hands.
The LEFT HAND SIDE of UPPER Milner Street consists of:
Brighton Flats - post-war building, most probably built on ruins or fields
Milner Flats - another post-war building, as above
Milner Grove - modern, yes, high, yes, BUT built (on the Milner Street side) instead of a house which jarred totally with the rest in the area, being an awful 1960s concrete ship-like building, AND the then Regent Hotel, a monstrosity "ta' zmien il-Labour."
2 blocks of flats built in recent years, trying (but failing) to emulate the architecture of the houses in the area. (Somehow, "new" wooden balconies jar with the old ones, and don't look quite right).
Then there's the lovely little house which has been restored with care, just like the adjacent pharmacy which blend in perfectly with the ORIGINAL ambience of the area.
(The latter two buildings, ie the house and the pharmacy, ironically weren't some of the better ones in the area a few years back, but now, given the ugly modern buildings surrounding them, they are simply a gem, as opposed to an "ugly gap".)
How very convenient of you to omit the fact that the whole of the RIGHT HAND SIDE of Milner Street consists SOLELY of houses (barring a sub-station "hidden" behind an obscure garage door).
Many people would fight tooth and nail to own a "flett fuq il-frant" or some concrete matchbox in Bugibba, Qawra or somewhere similar. I am not one of them, but look back in sadness at the state Sliema has been reduced too.
Even my children (aged 6 & 8) can see the difference between a townhouse and a concrete box, and that is entirely their opinion. A sense of aesthetics and an appreciation for beauty (potential or otherwise) are obviously not something which can be taught, but must be in-born. Likewise, the ability to form an objective opinion, and the principles to stand one's ground, even in the face of adversity and even if, by doing so, one stands to lose.
I don't have much faith in justice prevailing in the Milner Street / Howard Street case, because, especially given the furore that was caused re the MEPA/JPO case, the government (which I have voted for) would probably not risk further "exposure" by "reversing" the DCC's decisions, even if it were legally able to do so.
Sad, but true.
The high buildings you see in the photo ALL form part of the Preluna, except for the 5-storey non-descript block of flats to the right, just before the Preluna Towers. Are you not familiar with the area?
The world needs many more like him, because, by sticking to his principles, he stands to lose much more than his time.
Why is it, however, that you must still bring legaliease into it? ("it's the Judge who decides.") Surely you've heard of the saying that the law is an ass?
"it is obvious that between the first application ...and the second one on ... the scheme changed" (ie the houses removed from the UCA)
DO YOU NOT QUESTION WHY, Mr Degiorgio, ESPECIALLY since the 2nd application was lodged BY THE SAME PEOPLE, FOR THE SAME SITE, BEFORE the original application was finally decided upon?
"The authority realized that the ugly gap (and gawdy walls of the other buildings) are AEsthetically better off built." If you think that you are insulting me in some way, it takes a lot more than that. I've got very thick skin and have been brought up to stand up for what I think is right, and to think with my brain not anywhere else.
Try going through Howard Street from the Stella Maris Street end.
Stop at the Howard Street / Amery Street corner. (IF you are familiar with Sliema (and not just with this block as seen in the photo, then you would know where they are.)
Stand at the right-hand side of that corner, take a look at the COMPLETE skyline of the houses from near Howard Store all the way along to the Preluna.
Do you see ANY highrise buildings other than the incongrous Despott Mansions and the non-descript low-lying block of flats adjacent to the Preluna? NO!
Should Despott Mansions be demolished for aesthetics' sake? Hardly. Likewise, Mr Degiorgio, these houses should be left to stand as they are.
NEXT LESSON IN AESTHETICS:
Continue walking through Howard Street towards Milner Street , and stop at the corner next to the postbox.
Look at the houses in question. Now look further down. There are a further 3 houses (apart from a haridressing salon, the facade of which blends in aesthetically).
(Aesthetics lecture continued on next comment, due to lack of space)
"With all due respect, "outsiders", by which I also mean possible members of MEPA boards connected with the case - often hail from "new" villages (without meaning to sound pejorative), and have no respect for "old" Sliema, ie houses such as these"
"OFTEN", John Degiorgio, not "always". And yes, I stand by what I said. If you are the John Degiorgio whose family once owned one of the lovely houses on the front, then surely you understand what I mean. In your heart of hearts, you would understand that somebody - for the sake of the argument - born, and bred in Qawra, Bugibba or Tal-Handaq would usually have not much appreciation (if any at all) for such houses, since they would know no better, no matter what qualifications they may have. It's a fact. Face it.
Oh, and full marks for understanding my lecture on aesthetics :)
Meanwhile, the rest of my reply is on a separate comment, seeing that I am short of space here.
The matter at issue as tackled by FAA is simply based on a subjective belief that these houses are "lovely". The Heritage Advisory Committee is only one of several organs of MEPA and is advisory, as its name shows. One report and one organ does not a judgement make.
In MEPA there are many opportunities for objectors while the application is being evaluated, and one can appeal as well. An appeal can be much more productive than one-sided hysterics in the press and on people's doorsteps by FAA.
I do not doubt your genuine stand in this case and I admire the fact that you have a property in the vicinity which you neither want to sell nor re/develop. Leading by example is excellent, but one cannot force by example. Others have their rights and they are entitled to exercise them, even though one (many, perhaps) may believe that it would be nice if they don't.
The protection of buildings from demolition is not vitiated by their condition. In this case, the deterioration is wilful on the part of current owners in an effort to strengthen the case for demolition. Restoration as ordinary residences, for which purpose they were originally designed would enhance the streetscape over their entire frontage, and would overshadow the detrimental effect of taller structures in the vicinity. That is what conservation is all about.
Buildings, once demolished are gone forever. Demolition of buildings such as the ones under review and the consequent cost to the nation for the sole purpose of immediate financial gain is luxury that no country can afford.
But the block one can see in the photograph (from this corner on Howard Street towards the front and from this corner on Milner Street to Lombard Bank) is all built up now.
Even the way the photograph is taken shows the ugly walls all around. And these houses are in a bad state of repair, especially those on Howard Street. One can see them even uglier as one walks down Howard Street to this corner.
One should be reasonable. In several Sliema streets, there is a case for keeping what there is. But in this instance, there is no such case.
Turn round the Preluna from the front, you face Lombard, and go left.
Go up this street (which is Milner Str) and you will see that ALL buildings on the left side of the street (where these six properties) are built up to five and six storeys.
You will see the state of dilapidation some of these buildings are in.
You will see that in front of them (the right lower side of Milner Str) is also partly built up to six storeys.
To realize even more that these buildings should be no exception to others, go left again on the first corner (into Howard Street) and you will see the dilapidation on the left, the other buildings ALL built up to five storeys and more, including the Preluna stores.
The photo here is flattering. Go there yourselves and see that the block is ALL built up and that, whatever's built instead of these six houses will be much more habitable, will hide the extremely ugly boundary walls and, on Howard Street especially, will be definitely better than what there is.
See it for yourselves.
"...but they are already surrounded by high buildings and the high walls on each side are very ugly." So let us make the entire area uglier still??
My objections to the progressive destruction of Sliema buildings hark back to its beginnings over some twenty-five years ago, and long before that foul tide had reached my shores. My objections to the demolition of the Milner/Howard site also apply to other similar projects, not only in Sliema, but elsewhere where the same conditions apply.
The fact that I live close to the site under review does not render my objections any the less valid. Similar objections and grave concern have been, and still are being, expressed by other parties who do not live nearby - or even in Sliema itself.
"...a report by an expert (or the prosecution/defense) does not constitute a decision and it's the Judge who decides." But, of course, it does not necessarily follow that the judge's decision is always correct or even well-founded; and which is why there are then at least two other levels to which objectors may appeal - which is not the case with mepa.
The matter under review is not just based on ' ...simply on someone's subjective belief that a house is "lovely" '. It concerns buildings with features that underpin the whole of the Sliema UCA, and as re-confirmed by Heritage Advisory Committee during an ad hoc site inspection a very short while ago. It also concerns buildings that qualify for Grade 2 listing that prohibits even alteration, let alone complete demolition.
@Michael A Vella:
You ask: "why is the free-standing house on Tower Road at the bottom of Dingli Street scheduled?"
The answer is in your question: it's free-standing. Other blocks are not, and that is why the scheme changes.
As I told Ms Amanda Mallia (a relation of yours, apparently): "the fact now is - as the photo proves - tall buildings all around dwarf these six houses making them look exactly like children's missing teeth". That is why MEPA did what it did, I presume. You cannot agree because you live close by, but these decisions require objectivity.
Your stand (ie not selling and not developing) is very laudable, but that doesn't mean others should be FORCED by a public authority to do likewise.
You mention other organs of MEPA (eg the Heritage Advisory Committe that, by its own name, is advisory) that were against these decisions. But you fail to appreciate that decisions in MEPA are not taken by just an organ but by the DCC (or the Board in some cases). It's like the Courts: a report by an expert (or the prosecution/defense) does not constitute a decision and it's the Judge who decides.
.
Why did the mepa Heritage Advisory Committee declare following RECENT site inspection that the buildings should NOT be demolished because of their architectural value and also expressed its deep concern that they should have been removed from the UCA? Why was HAC advice then ignored by DCC?
The obliteration of all original buildings along Tower Road, and their replacement by hideous tower blocks is the result of your line of reasoning. The pattern being followed is obvious, mepa, inexplicably approves construction of a tall building in a line of terrace houses, then uses that same tall building to justify the destruction of adjacent old buildings, before repeating the process in adjacent blocks ...and that is precisely why a firm stand must be taken to keep the developers' corrosive fingers away from the original buildings that make up the rest of the town.
Having properly understood and digested your lecture on the right spelling of 'aesthetically',
I fundamentally disagree with your point that
"outsiders... which... also mean possible members of MEPA boards... who hail from the 'new' villages... and who have no respect for 'old' Sliema"
cannot arrive at the right decisions about building permits in Sliema.
According to you, MEPA decision-makers in cases like this have to hail from 'old' Sliema, meaning that they would obviously be biassed - a basic no no in a liberal-democracy based on the rule of (one) law.
This argument of yours leads me to confirm how emotionally involved you are in this decision.
Regarding the photo: keep looking at it and if you're not blinded by emotion you will realize that these six houses collectively form an ugly gap in an otherwise high-rise block. It's all there, you can see it in the photo.
Regarding the dates you quote, it is obvious that between the first application on 7Feb2006 and the second one on 9Oct2006 (a full eight months) the scheme changed. The authority realized that the ugly gap (and gawdy walls of the other buildings) are AEsthetically better off built.
"And the fact now is - as the photo proves - tall buildings all around dwarf these six houses making them look exactly like children's missing teeth."
Echoing "Henry Montebello" on this link, are we now?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080725/local/mepa-accused-of-breaching-heritage-law
See the reply I gave to him. As a parent of two lovely kids with "missing teeth", I can assure you that I cherish my children very much just as they are. To me, their individual characteristis makes them what they are. What a silly comparison for you to make.
You also insist on mentioning the "tall buildings all around".
Forget the Preluna for a moment. The other "tall" buildings are Despott Mansions opposite (in Milner Street), which has been there for at least 35 years and Brighton Flats (across the road, on Milner Street c/w Howard Street), which are post-war. Most people thought differently then.
Are you sure that your tirade at me is not to sabotage anything the FAA does, even though I have absolutely no connection with it?
@ Mrs Astrid Vella:
MEPA gets criticized precisely when it does NOT treat everyone equally. I've heard of cases where a permit to add two further storeys to a building was NOT granted when its two ADJACENT buildings were already up to four storeys. That's when MEPA's wrong: when it discriminates between applicants who are in the same circumstances.
The adjectives you keep using, 'weak' and 'strong' especially, might be populist enough for a media campaign, but we need to judge permits on whether they're:
the right or wrong decisions on clear and objective parameters,
without prejudice against the applicant,
treating everybody equally,
upholding owners' rights and
not deciding simply on someone's subjective belief that a house is "lovely".
Yes I will repeat: within MEPA there are full rights for objectors and appeals. You have those rights; use them. But then accept the verdict of a public authority. With much due respect (and you have waged several justified past campaigns), in cases like this, you tend to adopt a fundamentalist attitude when it is obvious that one has to look at the context:
ie high blocks surrounding a few remaining houses
that become an ugly gap on the streetscape.
.
@Ms Amanda Mallia:
When you said you lived on the same block, one understood that you lived in one of these houses. Not so: you lived further down. Explanation accepted. Yet, your emotional attachment to the block is still obvious, and understandable.
That is precisely why we need public institutions deciding objectively and not emotionally or subjectively. If we had to base permits on whether people thought the houses to be pulled down were "LOVELY", then we would enter extremely subjective territory, which makes decisions unfair, denying owners their rights simply on subjective opinions, and treating them UNequally.
This is exactly the same with other freedoms: e.g. you're free to join any party regardless of other people's (even a large majority's) dis/approval of that party.
You also compare the street's state now and in its "heyday". Again, precisely the point. If this were a two-storey area that never changed, retain it as is. But life tends to be complex and you always have to start from the facts as they result NOW. And the fact now is - as the photo proves - tall buildings all around dwarf these six houses making them look exactly like children's missing teeth.
Assuming that you are probably in your 50s, you should be familiar with the "other buildings" you refer to, because, who in Malta isn't? In case you are not, I'll spell it out to you: it's
THE P R E L U N A, which has been there since before I was born. The Preluna extension itself is at least 20 years old, meaning that it was there way before MEPA must have come into existence.
The "little" block of flats adjacent to the Preluna Towers in Howard Street is the only other "highrise" building in the area, and is, quite honestly, non-descript and insignificant.
THE FACT STILL REMAINS, Mr Degiorgio, that the original application was filed on the 27.02.2006, when the properties formed part of the UCA, and thus permit was REFUSED (with the final decision taken on the 07.12.2006), whilst the current application was filed on the 09.10.2006 (under "inside scheme" - Two whole months BEFORE the original application was given a "final verdict" because it formed part of the UCA).
I have NEVER lived in any of the houses in dispute, but I lived further DOWN the road. My parents still live in my "childhood home" (which has been in the family for decades), and have no intention whatsoever of budging, despite repeated offers (escalating ones, as my father previously stated). My mother herself had been living in that same street for around another 10 years prior to that.
As I have repeated ad nauseum, that's what might give me greater appreciation of the houses' architecture and aesthetics - Having spent almost the first 3 decades of my life living in the neighbourhood.
With all due respect, "outsiders", by which I also mean possible members of MEPA boards connected with the case - often hail from "new" villages (without meaning to sound pejorative), and have no respect for "old" Sliema, ie houses such as these. To them, Sliema often means "flett fuq il-frant" and "treffik". Get the gist?
Jeff Inguanez: Which recent tall building even begins to compare to the architectural level (not style) of Balluta Buildings? Re. Sliema, I’m afraid you’re wrong, Sliema began around the old chapel in High Street, then known as “Strada Reale”. Contrary to what you claim, the houses in Milner Street designed by Gustavo Vincenti, one of the finest architects of the period, are anything but mass produced, as may be seen by their detailing, though I doubt if you'd notice it, being so busy writing them off.
M Camenzuli: You bang on about respecting MEPA verdicts because they “Treat everybody equally” when you well know that that’s exactly what MEPA does NOT do, viz Mepa Auditor’s report on Hamrun Garages, Hamrun balconies and court case on Mellieha sanctionings, all cases where neighbours with identical cases were treated differently.
You speak as if MEPA decisions reflect justice, when you well know that the MEPA auditor has accused it of being strong with the weak (objectors) and weak with the strong (developers). We have even had the President of the Chamber of Architects declaring publicly that objectors don’t stand a chance against the resources of developers. What do you say to that? Of course you will still repeat parrot-like “Within MEPA there are full rights for objectors”
By the way the role of the Case Officer is anything but that of devil’s advocate, this statement shows that you either know very little of MEPA’s workings or you want to mislead.
Walk through the area, as opposed to driving through it, assuming that you have been there in the first place.
Stop.
Take a look at the row of houses in Howard Street, diagonally opposite the white corner house in the photo - The ones further on from the corner letterbox.
The first few houses there have all recently been painted or restored; others further along are too.
Are they not lovelier than any block of flats could ever be?
If you think so, then try to imagine what the houses in dispute looked like in their heyday, when the Howard Street houses I mention above were of no comparison.
Do you still think, in your heart of hearts, that MEPA removed the block in dispute from the Urban Conservation Area objectively? Hardly. Either that, or you've really got a poor sense of aesthetics, no appreciation for architecture, or in for a quick buck.
No less than MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Committee has just confirmed that these houses should have been retained in UCA. Furthermore, not only the DCC C voted against their demolition but also the Chairman of the DCC A upheld the application of the Heritage Protection Act...some six weeks ago, before her sudden volte-face which raises many questions.How’s that for MEPA consistency?
Peter Bonnici: That is exactly what we are saying, why were the facades not retained as happened in so many other cases? (so much for Camenzuli claiming that MEPA treats everyone equally). Because it was not convenient enough for the developer who wanted to develop the site more intensively.