I refer to a Talking Point article penned by Astrid Vella under the header ‘Stop the heritage cannibals’ (January 20). In her cherry pick exercise, Ms Vella chooses to give readers a distorted synopsis of how the “destruction of our heritage is especially rampant now”.
One of the cases Ms Vella refers to in her article is related to planning permission that was granted for the construction of a dwelling in the buffer zone of the Ta’ Ħagrat Temples in Mġarr.
Ms Vella opted not to mention that this development, within the building scheme, prior to having been given planning permission, was vetted and cleared by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. So is the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage a heritage cannibal?
Villa Mekrech is another of Ms Vella’s favourites. In her article she restrains herself from stating all the facts and so chooses to speak only about a planning permit which in October 2012 had been granted on a piece of land within the villa’s informal garden.
Ms Vella stopped short of saying that in July 2013, the current Mepa Board decided to schedule and protect the entire property of Villa Mekrech including the informal garden which formed an integral part of the contextual value of this property.
This decision, despite there being a full development permit on site, was confirmed again by the Mepa board.
No, the board did not hesitate at the thought of being requested to compensate the developer as Ms Vella assumed they would do.
Another case Ms Vella chooses to hand pick is the Villa Chapelle case in St Paul’s Bay. Here, once again, Ms Vella disregards the facts about the case and chose to write that “this week Mepa confirmed the permit to build about 60 apartments which will overwhelm the beautiful art nouveau palazzo… How can Mepa justify this decision?”
What Ms Vella failed to mention is that back in February 2011, the Mepa board had turned down the proposed development on this site. Following this decision, the applicant filed an appeal against the decision which in 2012 was upheld by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. The tribunal is completely independent from Mepa. In fact, Mepa defended the refusal of the proposal in front of the tribunal.
Ms Vella also mentions other properties such as Villa Guardamangia, Palazzo Rohan and Villa Drago. Together with more than 2,600 other sites, these properties have all been given a high level of protection by Mepa through the planning tool of scheduling.
Scheduling ensures that careful consideration must be given to a site or property should development works be proposed to becarried out.
Mepa’s primary responsibility should be to facilitate, encourage and incentivise owners of such properties to restore and find uses that are compatible and complement the heritage aspect of the building.
In fact, last April, Mepa removed the development permit fee where works relate to the restoration of buildings within Urban Conservation Areas or for scheduled buildings. This new measure will relieve property owners of a cost which can be better invested in the rehabilitation of their property.
It is also clear from recent enforcement action taken by the authority in the last few months that its priority and focus is to tackle illegal development in environmentally and heritage sensitive areas.
Additionally, only recently, the authority also revised the Use Classes Order which seeks to simplify the change of use of buildings to encourage the regeneration of the village core which is part of Malta’s cultural heritage.