Redevelopment in conservation areas

Anna Maria Rosso's complaints in The Price Of Conserving Old Townhouses (August 5), are understandable, however it is too easy to say "Sliema has been destroyed", as there were areas of Sliema which were still virtually untouched until the recent Local Plans, and, like it or not, they form part of Sliema's heritage. What many like Ms Rosso cannot understand, is that even owners of private property are not above the law, embodied in the Local Plans. Claiming discrimination because, like others before her, she is being refused an application to build five floors in a two-floor area is hardly credible.

Ms Rosso is mistaken in thinking that FAA objects to all redevelopments in Sliema - hundreds of applications are submitted annually but we only object to the few which are really damaging or go against the Sliema Mepa regulations, which are already more generous than any other town or village. It is not FAA but the Mepa Heritage Committee that recommends, as in the case of one application, that "the demolition and additional floors should not be accepted as this house is characteristic of Sliema townhouses and streetscape". Similar applications in this street were refused all the way to appeal years before FAA came into existence, so we fail to understand how Mrs Rosso can be accusing FAA.

Mepa's regulations allow re-construction as long as façades are preserved and we have only argued against this when other Urban Conservation regulations are being blatantly breached, as in the case of the unique untouched row of identical townhouses in Windsor Terrace, which had been indicated as scheduled until the present application surfaced. In fact, all we asked for in the cases of the Baroque house and the Milner Street townhouses, was exactly what Ms Rosso is calling for - retention of façades, as was imposed on nearby sites. Ms Rosso's discrimination complaint also applies to the injustice of some applicants being allowed to abuse regulations which others have to respect.

While we understand Ms Rosso's predicament caused by new buildings depriving her of light and air, she is now proposing to inflict the same on her neighbours. The law has to take into account the public interest, and Ms Rosso's plight shows that there is already little enough protection; is she advocating ditching even this inadequate regulation in favour of total anarchy? While there is a lot of talk of the rights of property owners, there is never talk of the rights of residents to enjoy a minimum quality of life. This is being completely destroyed in areas like Sir Arturo Mercieca Street, where 125 houses can be replaced by 1,250 flats - with no thought of the problems to be created to supply water, electricity and drains, not to mention the health hazard of the exhaust fumes of 2,000 cars in a narrow, one-way canyon.

Ms Rosso bemoans the problems and costs of maintaining an old house; however, does she realise that the latest techniques and materials do go a long way towards solving these problems? As for loss in revenue from the sale of her house for redevelopment, this is also due to the fact that there are over 5,000 vacant properties, mostly flats, in Sliema and St Julians. If her house is such a problem she can always sell it as a townhouse, as estate agents report excellent prices, many being snapped up before they even go on the market!

As for compensation, FAA is the only NGO calling for financial help to owners of scheduled properties and immediate activation of the Heritage Fund, planned in 1990 but never activated.