Project will stop if studies indicate possible danger - foundation
The proposed extension to the co-cathedral museum will not go ahead if the technical studies indicate any possible danger, the co-cathedral foundation said.
The St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation was replying to an item that appeared on The Times about fears that the proposed extension will damage the co-cathedral's structure.
The €16 million project proposes building an underground museum, about five storeys deep, to store the prized Rubens tapestries. But the project was highly criticised, with many organisations concerned about the potential damage to the co-cathedral.
The item also criticised the absence of a geological study in the project description statement. Foundation president Mgr Philip Calleja said that the report did refer to geological studies and also included a reference to alternative buildings.
"We have made it very clear that we are not prepared to take any risks and if any technical and scientific studies indicate any possible danger to the co-cathedral, the foundation will not proceed with the project," Mgr Calleja said.
He insisted that the foundation received EU funds for the museum's extension because it had submitted a detailed and technical report.
The foundation had applied for EU funding after a public call was made, Mgr Calleja said, adding that the technical report was in line with the required regulations governing the structural funds programme.
He said the foundation was waiting for the conclusions of a professional environmental impact assessment before making its final decision on the proposed project.
Mgr Calleja said the foundation could not understand why it should be penalised because it "had vision and was planning ahead to avert visitors' damage to the co-cathedral rather than react after the damage was done".
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’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
James A. Tyrrell
Feb 2nd 2009, 20:24
How many times is the Foundation going to come off with these same old tired arguments? The entire country knows by now that the report refers to geological studies. No one is disputing that fact. What the Foundation can't seem to understand is the logical fact that geological studies should be carried out now in order to determine if it is even necessary to go to the expense of an independent EIA.
And yes we all know that reference is also made in the report to alternative buildings. However what the Foundation forget to mention is that this reference is to the fact that the Foundation have no intention of even considering alternative buildings!
We also know that The St John’s Co-Cathedral Chapter has taken a secret vote on the controversial extension to the cathedral museum, but the Archdeacon, Mgr Philip Calleja, has kept the results under wraps. Why? It is in the public interest to know the results of any such vote.
Charles Sammut
Feb 2nd 2009, 14:47
We are immensely lucky that this splendid cathedral was not seriously damaged during WW II.
Quod non fecerunt barbari, fecerunt Barberini.
Ray Sultana
Feb 2nd 2009, 12:08
The foundation is being penalised for having vision? What vision does the foundation have? That of creating an underground museum. Even if we forget the noise, dust and chaos that this quarry will cause for years to come, still it does not make any sense. Why should the tapestries be housed underground? Would toursits and Maltese visitors prefer going to an artificial underground museum or else to a museum housed in a beautiful palazzo?
The only vision the foundation has is that of wasting everyone's resources with studies about a project that is absurd in the first place and wasting the earth's precious resources in the from of energy consumption, considering the huge amounts of energy required for temperature and humidity control in an underground museum. And I thought we were serious about climate change!
Alfred Zahra de Domenico
Feb 2nd 2009, 11:32
Should the EIA indicate a danger to St. Johns, it would be MEPA which would stop the project and not the Foundation. Reading the Foundation's spokesman's comments I can only state that there is no person more blind, more deaf than one who does not want to see and hear. May I suggest to Mons Calleja that he reads carefully Peter Serracino Inglott's interview in yesterday's Sunday Times.
Anthony Mercieca
Feb 2nd 2009, 09:47
No doubt that St John's Cathedral is a gem to our culture and identity and it is good to consolidate this priceless treasure. But there are other what should be gems for christianity, the downtrodden and the real poor. Is the Church really dedicating as much for these as seemingly being diven to the material church?