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 However, when the local plans were issued, the houses were withdrawn from the UCA even to the astonishment of MEPA's HAC that said in its minutes “the committee thought it was strange that the zone where the buildings lie was withdrawn from the UCA”.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.
RSS
Comments
Mario Debono - It would have been better had you come clean and stated that you are in favour of this development because - as the owner of the pharmacy slap bang at the top of the street in question - you would definitely benefit should this block of houses be replaced by several tens of flats.
"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.
"But when you sell, that's what very often happens. And it's now useless crying over spilt milk."
- Sorry to disappoint you, but - as I have already told you - I never owned one of these houses, less still sold any of them. My parents, on the other hand, live down the road from them, giving me greater appreciation for their beauty when compared to the ugliness now making up much of Sliema.
M. Camenzuli - "The penny dropped, and it made a very loud noise." The one you spent?
"So ... then you admit (after my asking you) that ... you used to live on the block at issue."
Sorry to disappoint you, M. Camenzuli, but you didn't coerce me into stating that I lived there. Try reading my previous posts again (including the "general" one posted a couple of hours ago), and you will see that I had already mentioned my parents' house. Oh, and the person I had mentioned living in Milner Street for the last 60 years of her life, should it also interest you, is my mother. Is there anything else you wish to know?
"owners who sold have no right to tell the new owners what to do with their property" - None of the previous owners/residents/tenants have commented about the matter. Why would they? Why should they?
"in this case of a block dwarfed by other high buildings" - You're obviously not quite familiar with the area, or maybe just speed through it. See my post to Mario Debono, the one where I mentioned "my parents' house" and you'll know what I mean.
"...you should not go about telling the new owners what to do with their property as if it's still yours." I repeat: It was NEVER mine. (Nor did any member of my family ever live there - I lived further down the road.)
"One expects better of you." - Why state something like that when I don't even know you from Adam, assuming that you've used your real name?
"If they want to keep insisting on Sliema retaining its 'former glory', they shouldn't have sold in the first case." As far as I know, none of the original owners/tenants/residents of these houses have commented about this case.
You also said "What about the rest of Sliema, in particular Ghar il-Lembi street?", which I take it to be an obvious reference to somebody who is extremely vociferous when it comes to cases such as the one in dispute.
Do you know what, Mario? You are wrong about this one too. The person in question is not that much older than us, and lives (or used to) in a block of flats which have been there for as long as I can remember, meaning that this person was probably either not yet born or was still a child when they were built.
The person in question was also extremely vociferous, if I recall correctly, about a particular house in Ghar il-Lembi Street c/w High Street, so what you are implying is not that correct.
What do you mean "whatever anyone in MEPA did"? Are you saying that even if - for the sake of the argument - the houses in question were removed from the UCA by MEPA to accommodate this "client", then all is OK? Principles, Mario, principles! :)
Was it simply a case where you expressed yourself badly, or are you insinuating that the developer is appearing for somebody else (presumably somebody "big" enough to twist an arm or two at MEPA to get his way)?
If my latter assumption is the correct one, then - if you are a man of principle and know of anything untoward re this case/MEPA - I suggest that you pass on any information you may have got to the relevant authority, by which I do NOT mean MEPA. Thank you.
"... such block is not only made up of the Preluna and the houses in question, but ALSO of a further 3 houses (in Milner Str, all in pretty good shape, and often the subject of many tourists' photos; ONE - MY PARENTS' HOUSE - also shown on the Malta video of each Virtu Ferries trip, aimed at tourists. That should tell you something about what is attractive to and appreciated by tourists, though not always, unfortunately, by the Maltese themselves.) "
(There were also instances under various other Times blogs which made it clear.)
You are all wrong in assuming that my family sold my childhood home to the developer. Thankfully, they're not blinded by money. (If they were, they'd have sold it to one of the many individuals bombarding them over the past few years). Thankfully too, we all stick to our principles, even if it harms us in the long-run.
Well, now you can stop drooling and rubbing yours hands in glee.
The property in question is still in the family - and will remain so, despite the repeated offers of escalating value made by those who think solely in terms of price, but know nothing of what constitutes true value and the meaning of adhering to one's principles.
And, Joe Degabriele, if any tears are being shed, it is not for the reason you mention, but for the sorry mentality that is actively promoting and supporting the ongoing destruction of our architecural heritage; the mentality that puts cash before everything else - as you admit to have found out for yourself through your personal experience.
Your seeking to shift the blame on those who voted PN into government is simply dodging the issue - it is you who is '" ...[taking] cover under the GonziPN stable".
It's quite emotional to see a house where you passed your childhood go!
It happened to me when I sold the house of my childhood and that I inherited from my parents. I was blinded by money, only to see my house turned into two maisonettes and the developer selling at a much higher price than I had got for my house. If I had waited, I would at least have pocketed more. But when you sell, that's what very often happens. And it's now useless crying over spilt milk.
@ Ms Amanda Mallia:
The penny dropped, and it made a very loud noise.
So you first ask ME whether I have an axe to grind (none whatsoever, just my point about property rights) and then you admit (after my asking you) that the personal interest is actually YOURS as you used to live on the block at issue.
If you used to live on the block and (I presume) you (or most probably someone else in your family) sold, then you should have done the decent thing and admitted it immediately you entered this argument.
All this goes to prove my point that in these issues, MEPA needs to decide OBJECTIVELY not emotionally (your emotion is justified, of course) or on the strength of a media frenzy.
Furthermore, owners who sold have no right to tell the new owners what to do with their property. The new owners have every right to ask for permits from the appropriate authority and, if the rules allow it (as should be obvious in this case of a block dwarfed by other high buildings), all abide by the public institution's decision, pending any appeal that can be rightfully lodged by the objectors.
Serves you right that someone here asked you whether you have a personal interest in this issue.
You were asking others whether they have a personal interest or an axe to grind and they naturally asked you back and now we all know what half of Sliema knew already, that you used to live there.
Even though you have every right to comment, you should have declared your interest immediately. If you have this block so much at heart (which is understandable, having lived there) you should still not go about telling the new owners what to do with their property as if it's still yours.
One expects better of you.
Unfortunately, this is what's happening to Sliema: people selling and then lamenting the fact that the new owners redevelop.
If they want to keep insisting on Sliema retaining its 'former glory', they shouldn't have sold in the first case.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080727/letters/mepa-and-architects
If your comment was in response to this one by Michael Vella, then you have clearly got a problem with undertanding what was written:
"Balluta Building was designed as a free standing block that is, 'environmentally friendly', 'energy efficient','pleasant to reside in", and a grace to behold. Balluta Building is all that the projected highrise buildings are NOT."
Tut, tut, tut, Gerald.
Since it seems oh so important to you, no, I do not have any interest in any of the houses in question. Why would I be objecting to their demolition otherwise? I simply spent the first 28 years of my life on that block, and obviously have more respect and appreciation for it than somebody with a mega chip of their shoulder, and with an axe to grind to boot.
Balluta Buildings is one of the last few surviving Art Nouveau buildings in Malta. To compare it with what is currently built nowadays is either idiotic or sacrilege. Take your pick.
@ Ms Amanda Mallia:
The most important date here is when the scheme changed.
You did not put a date after "Board decision Refuse permission ...." which was the first decision of the board. The 7th December 2006 meeting was a Reconsideration meeting (you say so yourself). The reason given on 7th December was not because the properties formed part of the UCA, but another reason (which you actually reproduce: demolition objectionable).
It is very apparent from the information you yourself reproduce, that the applicant re-applied once the UCA changed (when the local plan was approved, I assume).
By the way, do you have, or have you ever had, any interest in any one of these properties?
Just asking ...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THE MILNER STREET / HOWARD STREET SITE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH PERMISSION WAS REFUSED:
Case number 01218/06 - February 27, 2006
Urban Conservation Area
Recommended Decision Refuse Permission
Board decision Refuse permission ....
Reconsideration Decision date Thursday, December 07, 2006
Board Comments DCC 14103306 held on 07th December 2006 Dismissed in view of demolition of houses is objectionable
CURRENT APPLICATION FOR THE SAME SITE - IN RESPECT OF WHICH PERMISSION WAS GRANTED:
Case number 06269/06 - October 09, 2006
Case Category Inside Scheme
Recommended Decision Grant Permission
Board Decision Grant Permission
Decision date Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Board Comments DCC meeting 74-01A/08 held on 22 July 2008 Approved 4/0. RS, MP and PA not present.
If that is still not clear enough then this should be:
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).
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).
@ Ms Amanda Mallia:
Yes, RIGHTS are not only important, they're fundamental to the way we want to live (and they're no yawning matter).
I believe you do remember a time when rights were broken and when we were threatened with mob courts and government from the 'pjazez'.
Fundamental rights and the rule of law are ALWAYS important principles.
We might agree to disagree on these houses' issue, but
treating everybody equally, letting everybody (whoever they might be) enjoy their property rights, and letting owners apply and have their cases heard and decided upon by public institutions vested at law is fundamental.
Such decisions cannot be made in press conferences on people's doorsteps (as if now they don't even have the right to lodge applications), neither in a media frenzy, but within the appropriate authorities where objectors nowadays have full rights to make submissions.
I have no axe to grind. I have my own old terraced house which I don't want to touch. Does entering into an argument now mean one has a personal interest? But I do believe this argument pits a vociferous NGO against citizens who have rights and we need to take our rights seriously.
06269/06 26, 27, 28, 29, 60, 70, 72, 73 Milner Street c/w, Triq Guze' Howard, Sliema To demolish existing buildings and construct basement garages and overlying apartments, Mr. Joseph Abela Caruana Montaldo, Mr. Edgar Monday, October 09, 2006
Validation Date Monday, October 30, 2006
Target Date Saturday, March 17, 2007
Application Type Full development permission
Case Category Inside Scheme
Date Published in Newspapers Saturday, November 11, 2006
Representation Expiry Date Sunday, November 26, 2006
The standard period for Representations is 15 days. However the Authority reserves the right to reduce the representation period for special cases.
Site Notice Image :
Case Officer Johann Buttigieg
DPA Report Cleared date Monday, February 18, 2008
DPA Report Endorsed By Sylvio Farrugia
Recommended Decision Grant Permission
DPA Report sent date Monday, March 03, 2008
DPA Submissions received date No Submissions received
Agenda DCC date Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Board Decision Grant Permission
Decision date Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Board Comments DCC meeting 74-01A/08 held on 22 July 2008 Approved 4/0. RS, MP and PA not present.
__________________________________
Planning Applications Case Details
Result output on 7/27/2008 12:33:40 AM
Case Number Location of development Description of works Applicant Architect Reception date
01218/06 26, 27, 28, 29, 60, 70, 72, 73 Milner Street c/w, Triq Guze' Howard, Sliema To demolish existing building and construct garages, and apartments. Mr Joseph Abela Caruana Montaldo, Mr. Edgar Monday, February 27, 2006
Validation Date Friday, April 07, 2006
Target Date Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Application Type Outline development permission
Case Category Urban Conservation Area
Recommended Decision Refuse Permission
DPA Report sent date Thursday, May 25, 2006
DPA Submissions received date Friday, June 30, 2006
Agenda DCC date Monday, July 17, 2006
Board Decision Refuse Permission
Decision date Monday, July 17, 2006
Decision posted date Friday, July 21, 2006
Reconsideration received date Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Reconsideration DPA Report Cleared date Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Recommendation for Reconsideration Board Upheld (Original decision overturned)
Reconsideration Agenda Date Thursday, December 07, 2006
Reconsideration Board Decision Dismissed (Original decision stands)
Reconsideration Decision date Thursday, December 07, 2006
Board Comments DCC 14103306 held on 07th December 2006 Dismissed in view of demolition of houses is objectionable
http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/articles/view/20080517/local/mepa-ngo-argue-over-attard-open-space
Have you got an axe to grind with the FAA? Just asking ...
Simply because some errors have already been made, it doesn't mean that we should compound the problem, but makes the remaining houses worth preserving all the more.
You are beginning to make me think that you are either some newly-graduated lawyer trying to market his/her wares, or else have some vested interested in this matter. Either way, you seem to have blinkers on, with the words "rights rights rights" dangling in front of your eyes, just like the proverbial carrot.
In the block in question, however, the only "tall" building is the Preluna. Furthermore, such block is not only made up of the Preluna and the houses in question, but also of a further 3 houses (in Milner Str, all in pretty good shape, and often the subject of many tourists' photos; one - my parents' house - also shown on the Malta video of each Virtu Ferries trip, aimed at tourists. That should tell you something about what is attractive to and appreciated by tourists, though not always, unfortunately, by the Maltese themselves.)
The top LH side, consists of restored houses, one of which was turned into a much-needed pharmacy; The top RH side consists of a WHOLE ROW OF HOUSES. The only recent "highrise" buildings in the street are Milner Grove + the flats up the road from it. The rest have been there for decades.
Do you honestly think that it would have made any difference whoever was in power? You are probably old enough to remember seeing the houses on the front coming down one by one, starting in the late 1970s. Many of them were "developed" by people going by the surnames Spiteri and Vella (no relation of mine, thankfully, and neither, as far as I know, of Astrid Vella), amongst others. That would give you an idea who started it., Do you think that MLP would have put a stop to it, having started the ball rolling themselves? Does it really make a difference, Gerald? The important thing is to preserve what's left.
Jeff Inguanez. " Alas, FAA did not exist then!" But FAA exists now -and all right thinking people should be thankful for that.
Balluta Building was designed as a free standing block that is, 'environmentally friendly', 'energy efficient','pleasant to reside in", and a grace to behold. Balluta Building is all that the projected highrise buildings are NOT.
The issue now is that, by its actions mepa is actively encouraging, supporting, and accellerating the destruction of huge numbers of adjacent buildings, all of which buildings incorporate architectural styles and features that are unique to Sliema...it is they that make Sliema what it is.
Furthermore, these buildings deserve to be preserved as living testimony of the skills [now regrettably all but lost] of the Maltese stone masons who lovingly shaped and placed each stone by hand to create masterpieces to which only 'cash before culture' developers are blind.
The balance of comments on this and others blogs shows that there is a strong and growing shift in public opinion in favour of immediate cessation of the ongoing destruction, and of effective protection of our national heritage.
Mepa, and government, must take heed of this and act before it is too late.
The law has three facets: the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and the decidedly strange interpretation of the law that those entrusted with its application sometimes choose to give.
The first should always be subordinate to the second. There should never be any room for the third...as is the case with the project under review.
Anyone who has been following the sequence of events tied to this particular site should know by now that the matter has only hit the media after justified questions as to WHY the buildings were removed from the Sliema UCA, and perfectly valid objections to the project - including those made by the mepa Heritage Committee that had been called into the process by the DCC 'A' itself - were inexplicably cast aside by DCC that proceeded to summarily approve the project. Furthermore, the project is perceived as ignoring fundamental requirements that are mandatory under the building regulations.
There are three: join the bandwagon by putting cash before one's principles and speed up the demolition process; take a defeatist line such as yours and let everyone ride roughshod over you; or do the DECENT thing by taking a firm stand against wanton destruction of the national architecural heritage, and marshalling all of one's available resources in a bid to stop the rot.
When Balluta Buildings were erected in 1928, they were new and high, but no one would argue they were (or are) ugly.
In comparison, these six houses are really small fry, mass produced sometime in the 1920s or 1930s.
The worst atrocities that were committed are where Sliema started, the old part around Ghar il-Lembi Street.
If FAA had existed after the 2nd world war when those lovely historic houses were sacrilegeously torn down and the present hideous blocks built, it would surely have been justified to kicking up an enormous fuss.
Alas, FAA did not exist then!
The sole purpose of your comment is for it to serve as a platform for your puerile politically partisan dig.
What we are discussing here is not a PN voter issue, nor indeed a solely Sliema-resident concern, but one that is progressively eroding an integral part of our National heritage, i.e. the architecture that is unique to Sliema that must be protected in much the same way as that of Valletta, Mdina, and of all the village cores.
With all these comments here,
one must go into the basics of the argument which is just one question:
WHO SHOULD DECIDE?
We live by some very basic principles,
including fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Property owners have RIGHTS.
And they have the right not to be treated differently to others
(especially others that have built in their same circumstances).
One cannot be penalised simply because one is the last to ask for permits.
We also live by the RULE OF LAW.
There are laws that apply EQUALLY for ALL.
And it's PUBLIC and COLLECTIVE institutions vested at LAW that decide.
So it's not NGOs that decide, however genuine they might be.
Neither is it the media that decides -
a MEDIA FRENZY is not the right way to decide.
Within MEPA there are full rights for objectors -
and this is what FAA should be doing:
objecting within the appropriate structures.
It's not right, either, to quote reports that are only part
of the procedures presented by case officers
who are (rightly) the Devil's Advocate in these cases.
Property owners, like all citizens, have every right
to have their cases decided opon civilly and fairly.
The site in question is large enough to enable the retention of facades, and a series of receding floors. In that way the streetscape will not vary too much whilst the blank party walls and the backside of the Preluna will be hidden. I will also go as far as saying that I will be happier if Mepa granted an extra floor or 2 on this pretext, than permit the complete demolition of the houses. Common sense I suppose.
Being only slightly older than myself, Mario, you know like I do that the "highrise" buildings you refer to above (save one small block of flats to the far right) is none other than the whole of the Preluna. Should the house in question thus have been knocked down in the 1960s, then, not to jar with the Preluna's skyline? Pull the other one, Mario. Even you probably know that you're wrong.
The irony is that had the application for a permit for the demolition of the houses in question AS A WHOLE have been made just a few years ago, it would have been refused, just as individual applications for the green house to the left were, BECAUSE THEY FORMED PART OF THE UCA. Do you get it, Mario? PART OF THE UCA. What has made MEPA suddenly change its tack? Vested interest, maybe? Who knows?
The building plans for the Milner/Howard Street project, as filed with application PA06269/06, show three levels of subterranean garages - but show no cistern for collection of rainwater.
The inclusion of such cistern is mandatory for ALL buildings as stipulated by building regulations.
Steve Borg, please accept my apologies. Il-Moviment Favur il-Harsien tal-Maghluq of Marsascala has done sterling work for Marsascala. I was only referring to the case of the Triq il-Bahhara public open space where FAA has been campaigning for the residents' rights, in reply to a ridiculous claim that we only act in Sliema and Attard.
Keep up the good work!
Secondly, my comment at the bottom of the letter in the link below would show you exactly how I feel about "retaining the facade" which is a big joke:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080405/letters/sliema-earmarked-for-demolition
Also very worth reading is the letter itself (which, before you decide to "out" me, was written by my father). Mario, please do read the bit about the restoration of timber balconies - It simply proves MEPA to be a bit of a contradiction, with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
If you are the only Michael Balzan I know, then I'm quite surprised at your attitude regarding the matter, but then again, maybe I really shouldn't be.
1 of the main reasons that these houses SHOULD be protected is because they are THE last remaining GROUP of houses on the block. Enough damage has been done - aesthetically & otherwise - to the whole area, & as much as possible should be done to preserve what's left. Then again, not all "outsiders" would appreciate that fact.
"Well done Mepa for handling well such a decision & eliminating a few prickly pears. " - What exactly are u implying here? That MEPA was correct in removing the houses in question from the ODZ after 1st refusing the permit, having a new permit issued and VOILA'! permit granted? Are the "prickly pears" the people who stand up to such arrogance?
Do you realise that these are Grade 2 buildings, Mike, and as such should be protected?
buildings? Well done Mepa for handling well such a decision and eliminating a few prickly pears. I would have been surpised if such a permit would have been issued for instance in Valletta, Mdina, Senglea and other similar village core areas.
My claim is based on accepted international standards regarding architectural heritage. You might want to have a look at the Venice Charter, Articles 1, 3 and 4 in particular on http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html before dragging your argument further.
Hi Astrid,
May I point that Il-Moviment Favur il-Harsien tal-Maghluq of Marsascala, of which I am secretary, has objected to MEPA on numerous times to protect public space areas in Marsascala. We don't always issue press releases but if you check the online archives of other Maltese newspapers I am sure that reportage of several of our environmental campaigning issues would result.
A case in point is this:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/07/09/t16.html
May you also be informed that some objected have even been sent to Brussels, and I have personally spoken about the encroachment on open spaces while in Strasbourg some months ago. I shall not go into the merit of this present Sliema case, although I am of course perturbed, since our mission statement was the safeguarding of the Maghluq tal-Bahar in Marsascala.
cause FLIMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBLI
Perhaps the buildings have no historical value in the sense that no historical person lived in them but there is such a thing as aesthetical value.ever heard of it?
My Maltese freinds tell me it is almost an occupation there to buy "off plan" in the hope that higer prices will prevail when they are completed so that they can be sold at a profit . Property speculation goes on the whole world over, but Malta is small .Perhaps measures need to be introduced to force builders to complete the properties: windows, doors, balconies etc. many British friends who have visited at my instigation think Malta looks like a bomb site with its incomplete apartment blocks, rubble everywhere. The joke "Malta will be lovely when it's finished".... old but still amusing!
Stop building ...."refurbish" instead should perhaps be the motto. I only put pen to paper because I love Malta and don't want it to completely resemble everywere else in the world.
Well said here again. At least two blocks of apartments opposite the said site stood empty - or partially so - for a number of years, until one of them was turned into an office, whilst the other block now houses a variety of occupants (ranging from an office, to a prayer group, to holidaymakers). There obviously is not much of a market for more flats in the area.
Well said. Many a time, on walking through Milner Street, I have seen tourists stopping to take photos of the houses in question, and of their neighbouring ones. The people who live here, on the other hand, do not appreciate what we've got, seeing no further than the tip of their nose.
http://www.mepa.org.mt/sitenoticeimages/01/05518.01.jpg
http://www.mepa.org.mt/Planning/index.htm?../asps/DC_search_by_arch.htm&1
The Gonzi's Par Idejn Sodi are fracturing quickly.
@ Sue Beck Baker: you’re completely right about proper maintenance paying off in old buildings. Re funding, FAA had discovered that such a fund to give financial assistance for the maintenance of heritage properties, the Land Tribunal and Trust, was actually created in 1990, but was never activated. We have been calling for its implementation for over a year.
@ Valerie Scicluna. You got the idea re the Energy Efficiency regulations. I suppose that if the well was found to be missing after the building was constructed, MEPA would order the demolition of the flats in order to excavate the wells? like hell it would!
As for FAA's coverage, Mr. Spiteri, where are you living? FAA has regularly tackled issues regarding Gozo, Mellieha, St. Paul’s Bay, helped Lija preserve the Belvedere, speaks about Valletta and Fgura (air pollution). As for the South, we have not ony spoke of Lidl. Ask the people of Marsascala and their Local Council whether anyone has campaigned for them on the Public Open Space issue, other than FAA. We have also fought to rid residents of the scrapyards of B’bugia and our first project which occupies our only paid official is not related to Sliema but the Birzebbugia Għalqa tal-Papa.What was that you were saying about FAA not caring about the South?
I live in an old Townhouse, which has already been ruined;
1) the garden gets almost no light, it is now completely cut off by Flats
2) Flats have been built on top of the old neighboring townhouses, which not only makes the block look disgusting, but also caused problems in our house's structural soundness
I thought we were in favor of tourism; why destroy one of the Maltese features they come to see, whilst there ate 55K empty houses? *According to H.V
1) Let everyone be.... Is it your property that is being demolished???
2) On TVM news you were quoted as saying, that its not good to have people on the DCC to be an architect and married to an architect... If just in case you dont know them personally, I suggest you try to speak to them directly. The chairman and her husband are people of the highest integrity, honest, and will surely not allow personal interests to interfere with their public position.
3) Thanks to democracy, you are allowed to voice your concern, but sometimes, you might arrive at a stage, that for every single project, you might object....
But, yes, you can freely voice your opinion, however, please ensure not to pass any remarks that might lead to a bad name to the architects involved....
As for Stephen Spiteri question regarding why FAA did not raise it’s voice 30 years ago. Stephen I’m a tourist and even I know they didn’t exist 30 years ago! As for you comment that you have never heard Ms Vella complaining about Lidl in Kirkop etc. you are obviously orbiting a planet unfamiliar to the rest of us!
Finally to M Camenzuli I would just like to ask if you could refrain from referring to Mepa as a ‘competent authority’, as they are obviously very far from it judging by recent decisions. To be honest I fail to see why Mepa actually exist, as their decisions appear to be open to the highest bidder.
We Won Our Battle !!!!!!!
So what do these actions tell us? - to me it says these organisations are rife with corruption and rich developers, can buy approvals.
What can be done to change this 'unprofessional' situation?
In my opinion the processes must be made fully transparent, and information made available to all interested parties at every step of the approvals process. Also there has to be accountability, and decisions need to be 'signed off' by each person concerned, and not over-ruled by senior persons /powerful interests, despite valid objections.
I beleive the planning approvals 'system' in Malta is seriously flawed and possibly corrupt.
Supposedly, much of the front was at the time "developed" by people going by the surnames Spiteri, Vella (no relative of mine nor of Astrid Vella, as far as I know) and Camilleri, to mention but a few. Need I say more?
Unfortunately, it is too late for those, but the very least we could do is protect what's left.
"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”."
You also said "What if you were sitting on such an asset? What if they had to be yours? Would you act and blog the same way? Can anyone answer me this?" You can rest assured that I still would.
" As I see it the developer did not break any laws." - Maybe not, but here's some food for thought, extracted from The Times article above:
"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. (Continued in part 2 above)
Then again, with your attitude, I don't think that you'd be able to make the distinction between the architecture of these houses, and that of a box-shaped house built in the late 1970s, would you? Without wishing to be of offence to anybody, surely you must be referring to land in Swieqi and Attard when referring to "land dished out"? The houses there have certainly got no architectural value, and certainly none when compared to the houses in question.
@ J Vella. May I remind you that I am the current legal owner of the property not the keeper. Your argument is flawed. I don't have a right to live confortable so that future generations can enjoy it? Enjoy what? Is my house a museum? Are you suggesting that I should let you in my house at your discretion with a Video Camera to film how old buildings were build in the past?
Who, When, Why, How and through the influence of Whom, was this noble change perpetuated?
You're perfectly right Mr.J.Farrugia, - we all SHOULD REALLY let FAA fulfill the role that MEPA blatantly sabotages!
what do the two major parties representing the whole population, have to say about this uncontrollable development and this convenient moving of development zones,
NOTHING -
Its no-ones fault heq, heq MEPA , (like a computer randomly comes up with these baffling decisions)
Does any one honestly think that by having the modern concrete blocks next to old town houses we are preserving the beauty of Sliema???? What beauty???? Ask any foreigner!!!
Take a look at old photos of Sliema and just close your eyes and dream and then you will be preserving the beauty of Sliema......in your head!
How could you let these things happen, after knowing perfectly well that 'the environment' was one of the crucial points in the election, and you were lucky enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. ENOUGH of the 'concrete jungle' menatlity !!!
By definition, heritage is a legacy inherited from past generations, that is maintained in the present and preserved for the benefit of future generations. Cultural heritage is no different. So if you accept the fact that your townhouse forms part of a larger whole (namely the streetscape) then its loss would compromise the collective urban whole.
Presumably your house is older than you, and if it has survived long enough (for you to inherit it) then you have no right to deny future generations from enjoying it. Ethically speaking therefore, you are only its current keeper.
Admittedly old houses require maintenenance but you are only deluding yourself if in thinking contemporary buildings do not suffer from the same issues. (Both the environment and building materials are practically the same). For starters, you may be using the wrong paint systems. More so, green growth should dry out in Summer (and turn brown) not proliferate. This may mean that you (or your neighbours) have leaky water systems for instance.
It is so good to see that Mr. Abela is so concerned about health. There are many more damaging issues that are so detrimental to one's health. Although we should all have a right to choose, destroying our heritage should be on no one's agenda. Furthermore, Mr. Abela, you have alternatives to your concerns - unfortunately too many actually - you are free to sell your property, with all its defects and detrimental conditions, and purchase a healthy, mould free, humidity free, flat. You can even probably purchase several parking spaces. OR you could even reconstruct your house and rid it of all these problems.
I am not a member of any organisation and have no stakes either way. It just pains me to see this continued destruction of our village cores. Besides we are discussing several houses here, effecting a whole street scape.
I live in a house built at the time of the knights. When my roof leaks I do not buy a bucket but mend the roof. When I had humidity I carried out the necessary upgrades so that I can enjoy a healthy and clean atmosphere. It is indeed your property, but will your works be limited to your property or will noise, dust, vibrations, infringment on road invade the privacy of others? And will you be rebuilding within present parameters or have the authorities allowed you to infinge airspace? Given the values you propose, should we demolish San Anton Palace, Verdala Palace, and build a few high rises? If it is your property did you need a permit? why need permit when it is your property? why not go back to barbarian times? Enjoy your Sliema to your heart's content. We have reduced Malta to a permanent building site.
Shall I cry now.....
Do we need more apartments?? Aren't these town houses supposed to be protected?
No thanks, hawwad kollox int!
Lies, deceit, more lies and more deceit!
MEPA looks like it's heading in the same direction as the Government finances when in Gonzi's par idejn sodi.
FALLUTI! Now enjoy the ride!
Hee hee hee! Nice smile Gonz!
In todays day and age engineers and architects have the tools and the technology to know beforehand what the effiency rating of a building will be. No professional will go ahead and build something with "then we see" in mind.
The plane truth is that energy efficient technologies are expensive making short sighted people reluctant to spend the extra money. This is a mistake, new buyers should be aware of these technologies and DEMAND that these systems are installed. It might cost more now but it will pay its divedends in the future.
another job entrusted to MEPA has gone in the right direction ..that is to rob us of what is left. good job also to our prime minister who with his 'idejn soda' is taking care of Mepa.
Thanks are also due to former minister G.Pullicino who during his office Mepa has embarked on this mission.
Valerie Scicluna - Surely the wires are a whole lot more easy on the eye than the proposed concrete monstrosity? How petty, to deviate from the subject of the article in question in such a way.
By the way, where were Astrid and her cronies when MEPA decided to approve Lidl in Kirkop ? Or when farms in Hlantun (if she knows where it is) were rescheduled into farmhouses ? Or do we only hear her petulant voice when Sliema or Attard are affected ? Hasn't there ever been anything wrong in the South of Malta ? We never heard her complain !!!
Whilst the "restoration" of St Anne's Square is a move that will surely be welcomed by many, it is a pity that meanwhile, the few remaining old Sliema houses are being demolished before our very eyes. Ironic also is the fact that buildings across the road from the Howard Street / Milner Street block in question, some of which are an eyesore themselves, fall within the Urban Conservaton Area.
Typical. Demolish a bunch of townhouses to build another bunch flats for fast money - Approved. Yet an owner of a single townhouse wanting to renovate his/her place if shafted with a long list of cant do's. MEPA is about environment protection?? What a joke.
When the coutnry's realises what state the politicians and speculators got us in, it would be too late.
I just keep wondering:
it must be erstwhile Sliema residents who sold these houses so they can be developed.
Why does not FAA set up a fund and collect money so that these residents can be incentivised (ie paid) not to sell their houses to developers?
I'm sure that the neighbours (especially those living in blocks of flats opposite these six houses) would contribute generously to keep their views and light while supporting FAA in its admirable quest to save these houses of great and evident historical, architectural, cultural and social value.
.