The worlds of law and planning clashed yesterday when the chair of the planning commission and a lawyer went head-to-head over a proposed development.
Commission chairwoman Elizabeth Ellul raised eyebrows as she accused lawyer Massimo Vella of “showing off with the law”, when he made a legal point during a heated hearing.
Dr Vella in turn asked Ms Ellul to withdraw from the proceedings after taking umbrage at her comments, only for her to inform him that she had the power to ask him to leave the sitting.
“You are not in a court of law; this is a planning commission,” Ms Ellul said, prompting a look of disbelief from Dr Vella.
She later asked the applicant’s architect why he was not giving submissions during the hearing as she would have expected to hear from him instead.
The hearing was held to decide whether developers could demolish two historic Msida townhouses despite a recommendation by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage for the 19th-century buildings to be scheduled.
You are not in a court of law; this is a planning commission
The commission had last month asked the superintendent for further information. However, Dr Vella insisted that since this had been handed in after the deadline it could not be considered and constituted a “no objection”.
On her part Ms Ellul had initially said she would defer the matter to the Planning Authority’s executive council, but instead moved to an immediate vote with the proposed development being rejected.
A second application on the neighbouring house was also rejected with an immediate vote despite Dr Vella insisting this was a separate application which should be treated on its own merit.
The townhouses, along Tower Street, date back to at least the early 1870s and are believed by residents and architects to be even older.
The superintendence had recommended that the buildings be protected from development and given a status of grade two scheduling.
During the hearing, architect Carmel Cacopardo, appearing on behalf of the official objectors, argued that, once a recommendation for scheduling had been made, it should be respected.
“What is the point of having a competent entity, which recommends something, for it to then be ignored?” Mr Cacopardo asked.
He later added that, with the high number of empty apartments across the island, the last thing the country needed was another block of apartments.
Residents present at the hearing said the houses were part of “our collective history”.
“The streetscape will be ruined and surely one by one the houses will fall to developers. Every time a Maltese house is bulldozed, so is another part of our heritage and with it part of our very identity. For what?” a resident told the hearing.
The developers argued, meanwhile, that they planned to replicate the facades, but architectural historian Edward Said raised concerns over the practice.
If facades were structurally sound, and worth protecting, then they should not be torn down and replicated, he said.
It is not known whether the applicants will be appealing the decision.