The planning authority’s appeals tribunal has upheld the decision allowing the demolition of three 400-year-old townhouses in the Naxxar village core.
The case had prompted a public outcry for their preservation. Yet the planning authority approved the project in October 2013, allowing the houses adjacent to the parish church to be levelled.
They will be replaced by shops and overlying apartments, also carrying five advertising signs in the heart of one of the oldest villages in Malta. Naxxar was one of only 10 parishes that existed in 1436 and the square is an Urban Conservation Area.
The permit granted to Carmel Bonanno – an architect – sparked outrage, with residents and heritage lobby groups insisting it would destroy part of the area’s identity. A third-party appeal was filed by a neighbour, but the tribunal refused to halt their destruction.
The tribunal only included two safeguards. First, it obliged the applicant to present new plans within 30 days in which elements of the original design are included in the façade of house number 39 in Victory Square.
It is humble architecture with origins dating back hundreds of years
It also ordered the applicant to present new plans that would retain one room on the first floor of house number 45.
The tribunal said the room was still in good condition – contrary to what the applicant had presented in his plans. The authority had not done a site visit before granting the permit.
Architect and heritage expert Edward Said said the architecture of the houses was very significant despite its apparent humility.
“It’s humble architecture, what is called arte povera, with origins dating back hundreds of years. This side of the square is what remains of the old core itself – they are older than the existing church, which is not the original built,” he said, adding the replacement building was “nondescript”.
As a result of the permit granted, more than 60 per cent of that corner in the village square will be gone, according to the appeal document.
He was commissioned by the appellant to draw up a report to be presented at the second sitting in the hearing granting the permit. The report challenged the proposal on the basis of the architectural and historical value of the buildings.
His expertise was disregarded by Mepa, which said it was too late to present new documents. Instead, the authority relied exclusively on what the applicant said and the report put forward on his behalf by another architect.
The applicant’s report contrasted sharply with the one prepared by Mr Said and claimed the buildings held no historic or aesthetic significance, advocating demolition.
Mepa did not appoint an independent expert and it did not check whether the expert produced by the applicant had the necessary qualifications and experience to assess the matter, according to the appeal documents.
Mepa also overruled its own Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee’s suggestion to preserve the old buildings. Former CHAC chairman Michael Ellul had lambasted the decision, describing the properties as being on “the cultural extinction list” and in dire need of preservation.