Malta needs to re-evaluate its local urban conservation heritage zones and buildings that are worthy of conservation, according to the Environment Ombudsman.
David Pace was reacting to a complaint filed by museum curator John Vella about an approved alteration to a building adjacent to his Bir Mula Heritage museum.
“It is ironic that buildings which give value to the historic urban fabric of Cospicua, which escaped the widespread destruction of the World War II bombing, should now be lost because they have not been afforded sufficient protection from local development pressures,” Mr Pace said in his report, where he also remarked that people should not be expected to be familiar with planning authority procedures.
Mr Vella received Mr Pace’s reply in May, and he allowed the authority some time for a reaction, but when he did not hear from the PA, he contacted this newspaper.
He believes that the development – the addition of a washroom and facade alterations – on a building adjacent to the museum would impact the “heritage property” negatively and create a precedent for development applications within Urban Conservation Areas.
“Mepa needs to take into consideration the negative impact and irreparable effect that development approval in the adjoining and adjacent properties may leave on this particular historical asset,” he told the Office of the Ombudsman in February.
It is ironic that buildings which give value to the historic urban fabric of Cospicua and escaped the widespread destruction of the World War II bombing, should now be lost
Mr Vella alleged that while he had tried to attend a board meeting of the PA’s Environment and Planning Commission, he had been erroneously referred to the wrong board.
“By the time we learnt about this, the EPC had already taken a decision and did not provide us with the opportunity to object to this decision in person.”
In its reply, the authority noted that the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage had not objected to the proposed development and that according to the PA’s map server, there was no scheduling of any adjacent properties.
In his report, Mr Pace said that in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it was safe to assume that Mr Vella’s submission had not formed part of the decision-making process. “The justification by the PA on this point, in the sense that the complainant had ample time during the sitting to clarify the matter, before a decision was taken, cannot be accepted.
“Members of the public are not expected to know the technical nuances of EPC sittings. The email received was clear that the sitting was to be held in front of EPC B, and he patiently waited for his case to be brought up, only to be informed of the error at the end of the sitting.”
However, since the Superintendence had given the green light, the EPC would still have been justified in allowing the development, since it was not deemed to infringe upon cultural heritage policies, he added.
Mr Pace went on to note that although the sequence of events would have given the same result, Mr Vella was to be commended for his attempts to highlight gaps in the scheduling of buildings of importance, leading to a loss of Cospicua’s urban heritage.
In fact, in his conclusions, Mr Pace said the issue served to highlight the need for a fresh appraisal of local urban conservation heritage zones, together with buildings, which although outside these zones, were also worthy of conservation.
He also justified the complaint that the PA misled Mr Vella by sending him an incorrect notification email indicating the wrong sitting to attend, because of which he was deprived of the opportunity to make further representations.