Adopting an informed position on St John's
The very sound advice given by the Church Environment Commission on the ongoing controversy surrounding proposals about St John's Co-Cathedral is that we should study and reflect before taking a position. The very last sentence of its press statement clearly states: "Let us not rush to any uninformed decision."
The environment lobby has done, and is doing, sterling work in our country but there is sometimes a tendency of shooting from the hip. One cannot blame it, given the many bad things that have happened on our islands.
This, though, does not seem to be such a proposal. St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation is not made up of cowboys, speculators or Philistines. Its members have St John's at heart and are very culturally minded. They put forward proposals so that Maltese and tourists alike could enjoy and appreciate the Co-Cathedral's vast treasures that cannot be sufficiently appreciated due to lack of space. They are making two proposals: excavating below St John's or building in the courtyard. The foundation is also proposing that an environment impact assessment should be carried out before any final decision is taken.
The commission is right to point out that "we cannot assume a priori and without the benefit of a complete and technically sound EIA, that any options being proposed are unacceptable".
The environmental lobby should be open to change its position against the foundation's two proposed alternatives. Likewise, the foundation should be ready to consider moving the treasures under its custody outside of the Co-Cathedral complex if the EIA shows that the two proposals are not viable.
An informed position is the solution. Quite naturally this can only happen if, to quote the commission, the EIA is "truly objective". We eagerly wait for an EIA.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
2 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Miriam Cremona
Aug 31st 2008, 15:38
It is so convenient to dismiss opposition to these projects with accusations of misinformation when it is the defenders of these projects who are misinformed. Could Church Commission and Catholic Outlook please refer to the status of St John's, the Heritage Act and the application files so that they can form 'an informed position?
Yes Sirs, both applications should be dismissed 'a priori'. The law says that St John's in toto cannot be tampered with and therefore no EIA is needed to tell us what we already know. The law is there to be observed by all including the Foundation if we are not to have anarchy in this country. Mepa should be concentrating its resources on helping the Foundation identify a building to house the offices and ancillary laboratories attached to the Cathedral. We should rather be questioning why the Foundation has taken these artefacts away from their original location - the chapels within the Cathedral - since their dislocation is tantamount to dispersal of said artefacts. Once they are not in their original location it is immaterial if they are displayed in another building a few metres away.
Miriam Cremona
Aug 31st 2008, 13:29
May I ask the Catholic Outlook writer and the Church Commission whether they have consulted the Heritage Act, studied both application files at Mepa and attended the presentation by the Foundation since from their declarations it appears that it is they who are totally uninformed and are in fact ‘shooting from the hip’ since a serious EIA should only confirm what other 'informed' entities have already stated. Both St John’s applications go against the Heritage Act and Mepa regulations which categorically state that the Cathedral complex in its entirety is untouchable and should not be subjected to speculation and development. “Buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest that shall be preserved in their entirety. Demolition or alterations which impair the setting or change the external or internal appearance, including anything contained within the curtilage of the building, will not be allowed. Internal structural alterations will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where this is paramount for reasons of keeping the building in active use’ . That is the Law Sir.
Therefore the sanctimonious protestations in defence of the Foundation members are rather strange given that this same Foundation has submitted applications which go directly against the Laws of Malta.