Judicial action to protect scheduled country house

The owner of Villa Barbaro, a Grade 1 scheduled country house in Tarxien, has again had to resort to judicial action against the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to protect his property.

As a registered objector in proceedings before the Environment and Planning Commission concerning an application to build an ultra-modern structure adjacent to this heritage site, Marquis Antony Cremona-Barbaro has filed a judicial letter calling on Mepa to duly consult the Heritage Committee on the design and height of the proposed building, sited next door to the heritage site and in the most sensitive area of the “buffer zone” intended to protect it.

He is arguing that, while the “buffer zone” was expressly determined by Mepa “to conserve the vistas of the villa and its gardens”, the proposed structure, which will be clad in large sheets of steel, teak and glass, is of such inappropriate design and unacceptable height that it will do the exact opposite.

The owner’s basic grievance is that, despite his repeated requests from the very start for consultation with Mepa’s Heritage Committee, a committee purposely set up to advise in such cases, it has never been so consulted. What in the owner’s view is even more incomprehensible is that whereas at the first sitting of the commission the chairman was publicly heard expressing displeasure at this lack of consultation, nothing was done to remedy this serious failure and the commission merely limited itself to ordering some minor technical changes.

The owner is arguing that this is not a case of the commission not having the authority to consult the Heritage Committee. On the contrary, the planning law itself grants it specific authority to do so and, in the circumstances of the case, this authority becomes a true and proper duty, the inobservance of which flaws the proceedings. The matter takes on added seriousness when account is taken of the fact that the commission has before it a report recommending a refusal of the application.

The thrust of the owner’s argument is that there is absolutely no point in having a Heritage Committee for Mepa if it is not consulted in what is a truly classic case of the need for such consultation. This is even more glaring in the light of the fact that, as the designated protecting authority, Mepa has the unquestionable legal duty to protect what is an important part of the country’s heritage, officially scheduled as such by Mepa itself.

The owner is therefore calling on Mepa to ensure that, before any decision is made by the commission, the Heritage Committee is properly and duly consulted.

A similar judicial letter had been filed in January 2009.