Sliema houses decision: MEPA 'reclaims common sense' - FAA
The environment group Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) said this morning that yesterday's Development Control Commission's decision on the fate of the Art Nouveau houses in Dingli Street was a victory for common sense.
This, FAA, had been a difficult situation where the Local Plan categorisation and height limitation did not tally with the more precise evaluation of the houses by MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Committee and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.
The DCC Chairman recommended yesterday “that a revision of the present street categorisation and height limitation of the whole Dingli street is carried out prior to a decision being taken” on the Art Nouveau houses.
He further recommended that “abutting properties are not assigned different street categorisation, to ensure homogeneous planning solutions.”
The FAA explained that the finest house, 10 Dingli Street, had been described by the MEPA case officer as being almost of the standard of Grade 1 scheduling, ie, a national monument, while the 2006 Sliema Local Plan downgraded it from Category B+ to C!
A similar anomaly was made with the six fine Sliema townhouses on the corner of Milner and Howard Streets, which have been deprived of protection as part of Sliema’s Urban Conservation Area (UCA), much to the amazement of the Heritage Advisory Committee.
The FAA said the chairman's recommendation to revise the Local Plan for Dingli Street coincided with the formal request it had made, along with Sliema Local Council to MEPA, for a review of the Sliema Local Plan.
"FAA urges MEPA to commence this review as soon as possible, and furthermore MEPA is called on to desist in issuing permits which might violate the intentions of the review," the NGO insisted.
The group said it looked forward to seeing every part of Malta and Gozo regulated by a revised Local Plan which protected the rights of developers and residents alike.
It also called for the long-overdue start-up of the Heritage Fund which was established 20 years ago to provide financial assistance for the owners of heritage properties but was never activated.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
M. Sammut
Oct 23rd 2008, 19:48
If Local plans can be reviewed after two years in this case after August 2008, surely this application for development was made months if not years earlier when the 2006 structure plan was still in vigore !!! Changing development category of property now that is quite some time after an application had been submitted simply makes mockery of the structure plan. It is only fair and logical that the rules and regulations in force AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION SHOULD APPLY. If not does it mean that if tomorrow it is argued that the historical buildings at Tigne Point plus the surrounding area should be preserved as a National Monument, will it result in reversal of the Tigne to its original state? This applies to ALL development application in the Maltese Islands.
Astrid Vella
Oct 23rd 2008, 15:41
@MAbela:There is now general consensus that the 2006 Local Plans did not follow the required process of full public consultation.The plans shown to the public did not show the changes that were implemented.MEPA officials are not bowing down to pressure from NGOs but simply following the law that Local Plans can be reviewed after 2years which expired last August.
I cannot speak for other NGOs,however FAA did not exist in 2005 when the consultation process concluded, therefore we were not in a position to object, though several Sliema residents are on official records as demanding that the building heights should not rise any more, with no submissions recorded in favour of a rise. And yet rise they did! Maybe developers’ lobby exerted the sort of pressure you’re complaining of here?
The fact is residents have rights and MEPA’s planning regulations are supposed to be oriented in favour of the community,not the home-owner,nor the developer.This is admittedly hard to swallow after decades of speculators trampling roughshod over residents, but the change is long overdue.
I suggest that MAbela is the one who needs to check his facts, also about our ongoing campaign for support and compensation to owners.
M Abela
Oct 23rd 2008, 13:11
Maybe MEPA should make up its mind and stop changing the goal-posts; owners and developers can only turn to MEPA directives and guidelines, in terms of local plans that were approved by Parliament as recent as 2006, to plan property developments. It now appears that MEPA officials are bowing down to pressure from external bodies, by changing what had been agreed by the highest authority in the land and published as the official standards for developers to adhere to. Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that these pro-heritage NGO’s should have voiced their objections when these local plans were being drawn up and at a time when a number of far superior properties than those along Dingli street had already been demolished. If these groups are so adamant that such properties should be preserved, they should lobby the powers-that-be for appropriate support and compensation to owners and stop this crusade of so-called ‘preserving our heritage’ at the expense of others. Talk is cheap and objectors should get their facts right first before proposing across-the-board preservation and scheduling of such property on the basis of their architectural value which may not necessarily be the case.