Juan Ameen
‘Solution’ sought to government’s Valletta eyesore
Photo: Matthew Mirabelli
The justice ministry wants to find a solution to the new eight-storey building in Valletta that has been slammed as a sacrilege to the Unesco-protected city and its skyline.
The director general of the law courts has been instructed to “discuss” the issue with the planning authority and “identify solutions”.
The building, which is intended to house the judiciary’s chambers and the family court, towers over the neighbouring structures by at least three storeys of limestone and cement blocks. The Chamber of Architects and heritage organisations have expressed shock at the development.
Photos of the unsightly structure went viral on Facebook and it was heavily criticised – including by prominent architects – for the way it disturbed Valletta’s skyline.
Commissioned by the government, the works involved joining two houses in Strait Street and raising it to eight floors to house the judiciary’s chambers as well as a drugs court.
A planning authority spokesman confirmed the director general was “in discussions with the authority to identify structural alterations to mitigate the visual impact”.
In a carefully worded statement, the Environment Ministry said the government “requested a meeting between court and the planning authority to explore a solution that respects the importance of Valletta’s skyline and protects its heritage while allowing a sustainable use of the building.”
Saying it was “conscious about the sensitivity” of this particular development, the environment ministry reiterated that the building, which forms part of a €1.8 million project, was covered by a 2007 permit.
“From 2008 onwards, the need was felt to reform the planning authority to, among other things, increase sensitivity towards the importance of protecting the environment and historic heritage,” it said.
Planning authority enforcement officers inspected the site this week and established that the works fell in line with the permit conditions, an authority spokesman said.
The project had been recommended for refusal by the planning directorate after the government submitted an application in 2001. However, a Development Control Commission overturned the recommendation and granted the permit after asking the developer to remove a bridge linking the new chambers with the law courts.
The unsightly building was also criticised by Labour planning spokesman Roderick Galdes who questioned the use of non-traditional building material and high walls, saying it was the government’s “worst example” of planning in Valletta.
Mr Galdes, who is also Labour’s appointee on the planning authority board, pointed out that this permit contrasted greatly with permits for less important projects denied to other applicants.
However, the environment ministry argued that things at the planning authority had changed over time with, for example, the introduction of two environment commissions with full-time members and two board members – Judge Giovanni Bonello and lawyer Philip Manduca – who are experts in cultural heritage.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
42 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
David Scerri
Jan 27th, 17:57
SOLUTION..........raise all the other houses in valletta....this can only happen in malta
James Dewar
Jan 26th, 18:26
Having visited Malta regularly over many years I have always been bemused by the length of time it takes for buildings to reach completion, many seem to be in the construction phase for years. How then can this undoubted monstrosity suddenly appear with apparently nobody noticing the obvious detrimental effect that it was going to have!? Strange indeed!
Aaron Vella
Jan 26th, 17:14
Wow, who came up with this idea! What the heck is that thing doing in Valletta?
Conrad Thake
Jan 26th, 16:10
Short of getting David Copperfiled to render it invisible to all of us, there is only ONE solution, tear down the monstrosity. No mitigating features or other verbal fudge will improve the situation. Better to have the humility to reverse a gross error of judgement then to defend the undefensible.
Victor Pulis
Jan 26th, 16:09
Where was MEPA when the building was still under construction? I don't think this monster appeared overnight so why the delayed action? is it because they know thaat in three months' time everyone will have forgotten all about it like the Arriva disaster?
Victor Pulis
Jan 26th, 15:06
This new monster seems to have appeared overnight! Didn't MEPA notice the work being done? Where were the inspectors as the building was going up stone by brick? In three months' time no one will be writing about it just like the Arriva disaster.
Victor Pulis
Jan 26th, 15:02
Why not camouflage it by painting it sky blue with some clouds?! They are looking for a solution. Like what? The only solution is to take it down.
Saying it was “conscious about the sensitivity” of this particular development, the environment ministry reiterated that the building, which forms part of a €1.8 million project, was covered by a 2007 permit.
So what? Who makes the regulations? are they brought down from Mount Siai curved in granite (or concrete as the case may be?)
Planning authority enforcement officers inspected the site this week and established that the works fell in line with the permit conditions, an authority spokesman said.
The permit conditions are flawed and must be changed. We can see the end result.
James Tyrrell
Jan 26th, 15:02
The solution here is quite simple. As any Star Trek fan will tell you the eyesore can be hidden by using a Romulean cloaking device although the space required to house the electromagnetic generator may be a problem. I guess they could always use the method used by the ordinary Maltese citizen in such situations, that is to demolish it.
J.C. Borg
Jan 26th, 15:00
What I can't understand is why everybody got up from their nap after the building was finished and mentioned in the press.
Where were you before?????
M cauchi
Jan 27th, 10:04
Same place you were I hope... Working my butt off to survive and pay taxes!!!!
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jan 26th, 14:32
Why is the Govt interfereing in a planning decision? I thought MEPA was free to act on its own without Govt interference - or so we have been told in the past. If only Govt had intervened to rid us of so many bad decisions by MEPA, but for some odd reason this Govt never lifted a finger to protect our environment from the contractors.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jan 26th, 14:26
What about accountability? Whis responsible for this bad decision? The members of the board who took this decision and those who put them there should be made to pay the costs for any changes that are going to be made. Otherwise once again we the taxpayers apy for other people's mistakes.
Francis Coquelin
Jan 26th, 14:16
Easy to criticize. But what about the need for the courts to have more personnel and more office space? One solution is to move the courts outside of Valletta. But then people will complain that the city is becoming abandoned.
O GALEA
Jan 26th, 15:25
There are many empty BUILDINGS (not just flats but whole blocks) in Valletta. I can think of three off the top of my head.... one in Piazza independenza (west street) corner with Archbishop Street, one at the bottom of Old Mint Street on the right also on a corner, and another in the corner of St. Paul's street/St. John's street (triq il ganc). All can be converted into office buildings.
Charles Zammit
Jan 26th, 13:07
Get that ABOMINABLE stone box removed !! That is the only solution !! How much more rape can this little Island of ours take ? Still come 12 / 12 / 12 all will be solved !!!!!
Ivan Calleja
Jan 26th, 11:56
What solution??? There is ONLY ONE SOLUTION and that is DEMOLISH the building!! But obviously it WILL NOT be done!! Maybe in 3 or 4 years time they will find a solution....by then the people would have forgotten and the solution would be to retain the structure. MEPA tal-Mickey Mouse, pupazz tal-GVERN!
Francis Bonello
Jan 26th, 16:13
100% agreed
walter camilleri
Jan 26th, 11:42
Why the surprise about yet another eyesore/waste of money? The question to ask, as in the cases of the topless theatre, glass cage parliament, and the suicide leap/breakwater bridge to nowhere is whose pocket and/or ego was satisfied by whoever commissioned these disgraceful unneccessary eyesores in our City built by gentlemen and ruined by .......... ? Quod non fecerunt barberi fecit I wonder who!
Walter Camilleri
Mr ALBERT LEONE GANADO
Jan 26th, 11:37
This new extension does really look ugly and offends the visual senses. The architect really deserves a dog medal for his design and it also seems that in our society it is not only speculators who can pervert good taste for financial greed. In this case it must have been the greater convenience and comfort of our judiciary which won the building permit. The problem we face is what should one do now to eliminate this monstrous eyesore. The best solution would be of course to knock it down but this is highly unlikely to happen given the immediate family court needs and the political and taxpayer fallout which would result. The best solution I find is therefore to disguise it into into some passable structure more in tune with the architectural idiom of Valletta. For let us admit that another monstrosity such as is the church cupola to rival St Paul's cathedral is slowly blending into the landscape. I would suggest that it be made to look like a clock tower, or a belfrey with a large judicial scales sculpture or even into a high valletta tenement with wooden balconies.
Kevin Spiteri
Jan 26th, 11:26
Solution? Simple. Make Renzo Piano stamp the necessary papers!
Chris Xuereb
Jan 26th, 11:22
Tear it down like MEPA does to any other eyesore (illegal) building.....or is this a situation of two weights two measures?
Brian Simmons
Jan 26th, 11:05
How was permission given and how much did it cost?
How can this sort of monstrosity still happen, especially in Valletta.
It seems that those in charge have no idea, or have no care or interest in looking after this great City.
Shame on all those involved.
It must should be removed immediately, but I bet nothing happens!
Mario Farrugia
Jan 26th, 11:04
Solution? What solution is being sought??
There is only one, logical, obvious solution - pull it down! Period! No messing about... no fancy words.. no procrastination... just pull it down!
I wonder whether a "solution" would have been sought had it been me, Mr. Nobody... Mr. Honest Taxpayer... who had erected that obscene monstrosity!!!
Joe Grech
Jan 26th, 11:03
@Minister Mario DeMarco - There's only one way - ensure that every brick put up is taken down. How shameful that despite repeated calls by Case Officers to refuse the permit the DCC board ignored all and sundry and granted the permit.
Make them explain their reasons for so doing and hold them accountable. (As if!!)
saviour visanich
Jan 26th, 10:53
I hope that now, thousands of euros will not be paid to some so called expert to find the most obvious of a solution, that is, just demolish the building.
Robert Lewis
Jan 26th, 10:53
For Mepa to approve these type of structures is quite common, so don't panic. Go to Efesu Street in St Paul's Bay and you can see a worst situation, but with all the blessings of Mepa. Thats Malta. MMC.
Mr Steve Cassar
Jan 26th, 10:25
There are so much empty buildings in Valletta! Why create such an eye sore??
Any logic sense????
M cauchi
Jan 26th, 10:17
my son wanted to build an additional two filati, on his roof.. with old stones as is the rest of the facade... But no... permit was not issued, reason was ,that it would go too high,, although just few metres up the alley, there is a building which is higher.
'Planning authority enforcement officers inspected the site this week and established that the works fell in line with the permit conditions, an authority spokesman said' Which line I wonder? What Permit conditions?? I thought these conditions apply to all and sunder.
well now the only solution is the solution given to ordinary citizens... KNOCK IT DOWN... should never have been there in the first place.
Astrid Vella
Jan 26th, 10:16
Government sources are repeatedly stressing the point that MEPA's Development Control Commission (DCC) overturned the recommendation and granted the permit after asking the developer to remove a bridge linking the new chambers with the law courts - as if this had been the only issue.
This is deliberately misleading because in reality the Case Officer and Planning Directorate had recommended refusal of the application for all of the following reasons:
1. The proposed bridge, connecting this building with the Law Courts is unacceptable and does not comply with Area Policy GV 14 of the Grand Harbour Local Plan.
2. The proposed development is incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the Urban Conservation Area. It would not maintain the visual integrity of the area and so does not comply with Structure Plan Policy BEN 2.
3. The proposed development would detract from the overall objectives of the Structure Plan for the preservation and enhancement of buildings, spaces and townscapes within Urban Conservation Areas and so does not comply with Structure Plan Policy UCO6.
The proposed bridge was later eliminated but clauses 2 and 3 still remain as valid as ever.So why was the application approved if only one out of three issues were resolved. The DCC has a lot of answering to do.
So much for being called the 'Development Control Commission DCC' - if this is control, I'd hate to see MEPA uncontrolled!
Joe Grech
Jan 26th, 12:04
@Astrid Vella and Minister Mario DeMarco - Surely you both know that it is exactly THAT WAY that the infamous DCC acts. Case Officers give different reasons to explain in great detail WHY they recommend that an application be refused.
What happens then: the developer slyly puts right one or two of the reasons - in this case they removed the ''bridge''.
Then the DCC in its manifest wisdom that the permit can go through.
Barefaced sleight of hand and unaccountability. Mario DeMarco ought to ask the Commissioner of Police to investigate this serious abuse and to jail the offenders. Saying that he's out to find a ''solution'' only serves to show his complete detachment of duties at MEPA. He has let the Maltese - and his beloved Valletta down.
Mr A Bonello
Jan 26th, 10:16
why not just knock it down!there are plenty of buildings that are empty in UNESCO Valletta
Charles Alamango
Jan 26th, 10:04
Remove the eyesore as soon as possible, it's shameful. Was MEPA consulted about this illustrious project?
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jan 26th, 14:35
What do you mean was MEPA consulted? MEPA's employees, the experts, insisted that it should not be built. But the DCC - a board appointed by the Govt - ignored all recommendations and issued the permit.
H. Galea
Jan 26th, 10:01
Has this be taken as a practical example of how the ordinary citizen should respect his country's heritage ? Shame !
Karl Calleja
Jan 26th, 09:44
They can meet up as much as they like, the only suitable solution is to drop all the new development. waste of tax payers money as they should have seen this before they actually built it. Well the permit shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Joshua De Giorgio
Jan 26th, 09:42
If they really want to tackle the local blasé attitude to physical and non-physical cultural heritage, the government and associated authorities should really lead by example. This only sends the message that if you are connected and/or of "importance" you can simply get away with it. How could such a monolithic and bleedingly obvious architectural foul even be suggested in the first place, let alone be approved? Furthermore what possible solution can be found? An invisibility force field?
Charles Vella
Jan 26th, 09:41
Mela l'ewwel telgha il bini, u issa se jitwaqqa? I rarely visit Valletta, however I only saw this building yesterday and I saw it simply because I knew that it was in the news, and therefore looked for it, to actually see it!! It's only an eye-sore because it's going to become politically motivated, nothing else! If it was never in the news (l-orrizzont) then no one would know any thing, and life would go on as usuall... However, that's the job of the media... Making a molehill look like the Alps!
Joshua De Giorgio
Jan 26th, 10:02
Not everyone is obsessed with parochial political agendas. This issue was raised by concerned citizens via social networking sites, simply because they care about the capital. How the media choose to deliver the story is their own cookie, though i agree it is likely that a political slant might be applied.
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Jan 26th, 14:39
Mr. Vella, thank you for your support for Maltese heritage. For you, anything goes so long as you do not see it. Tajba din! I think MEPA must have reasoned like you, hoping nobody would notice this monstrosity. I hope you noticed that dr DeMarco seems to be worried about this hideous building - if it were just politically motived, then I suppose he would ignore the criticism.
Paul Caruana
Jan 26th, 09:28
The only reasonable solution is to knock it down! I am sure that additonal office space can be found in Valletta without having to build this monstrosity.
Bernard J Schranz
Jan 26th, 09:54
I totally agree. This is gross insensitivity towards our capital city, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It's building should have never have been sanctioned in the first place by MEPA.
Pull it down before someone decides to apply for another similar high rise on the basis of this monstrosity's approval !!!
Did the architect who designed this not have any national pride to regale us with such an edifice of vulgarity? I wonder !
Mr Tony Gatt
Jan 26th, 09:21
Maybe those houses were better off as bars!