Godwin Cassar’s Talking Point ‘Independent heritage guardian’ (the Times of Malta, September 28) served to highlight the various misunderstandings and obfuscation that exist when it comes to links that exist between planning and heritage. Once again I offer my apologies if my piece, which Cassar so generously took to task, may not have been clear enough.
For the sake of clarification it is essential to point out that the setting up of the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) was constituted through the Planning Act of 1992 when the government department responsible for the management and protection of Malta’s cultural heritage was theMuseums Department. The latter was both the operator of government-owned heritage sites and the regulator of heritage matters. This awkward and contradictory situation was intelligently addressed through the Cultural Heritage Act of 2003. That legislation ‘de-merged’ the Museums Department into Heritage Malta (as operator) and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (as regulator).
Part II of the Cultural Heritage Act covers the principles and general duties of the State. Of major significance to the current discussion is Article 4(c) which says clearly that the State is responsible for “ensuring that conservation, land planning and other initiatives affecting cultural heritage areas take into account the social fabric of existing communities and strive to improve the living conditions for all levels of society. Such initiatives should ensure, where possible, that they do not precipitate negative changes to the social fabric of the population of any given locality intervened upon”.
Cassar is therefore correct in stating that “consideration of heritage matters must be guided not only by the intrinsic value of heritage”. He must also be comforted by the fact that considerations for “social issues, the urban context…[etc.]” are boldly enshrined in local heritage law.
Furthermore, it is undoubtedly clear that the aforementioned principles and general duties are taken very seriously by the State and are not listed simply as lip service. In fact, Part III, Section 5 of the Cultural Heritage Act, dedicated to the functions and duties of the Superintendence, clearly lays out the latter’s role in the country’s planning process. Article 5(g) affirms that it is the duty of the Superintendence: “To advise and coordinate with the Planning Authority action in safeguarding cultural heritage when considering applications for planning permission relating to development affecting objects, sites, buildings or landscapes which form part of the cultural heritage.”
When it comes to heritage matters, rather than fragmenting the various inputs the proposed planning legislation actually consolidates them
The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage undertakes this obligation with a true sense of duty. This despite other widespread obligations the details of which I will refrain from listing here. Such duties are carried out despite the chronic shortage of personnel that has plagued this institution since its inception. Therefore the rationale behind the increase in human resources at the Superintendence is to continue to give an irreplaceable and fundamental service to Mepa in a more efficient manner.
The inextricable link between conservation and heritage was certainly not overlooked by those responsible for penning the Cultural Heritage Act. It places the onus of promoting and ensuring “the best policies, standards and practices in the conservation and presentation of artefacts, collections, museums, buildings, monuments and sites” on the Superintendence. Moreover, I cannot help but agree with Cassar’s assertion that there is “direct benefit in having full-time planning staff responsible for heritage planning”.
That is precisely why, in the proposed changes to the planning law, the excellent team that is the Heritage Protection Unit of Mepa is being retained. As for having “an independently constituted body to tender advice” it is a well-known fact (at least for those active in the heritage, restoration and conservation sectors) that both the Superintendence and the Heritage Protection Unit have a proven track record of consulting with numerous government and non-governmental organisations as well as independent individual experts.
When it comes to the consideration of heritage matters, rather than fragmenting the various inputs the proposed planning legislation actually consolidates them. It does this by placing them within an agency (the Superintendence) – the duties of which are clearly and unmistakably defined in the Cultural Heritage Act of 2003. I have no problem if this matter of fact sits uncomfortably with some but I reassure all that there is absolutely no intention of ‘weakening the system’. Quite the opposite, the work that we continue to do is aimed at strengthening and advocating the importance and relevance of cultural heritage.
Timmy Gambin is chairman of the Committee of Guarantee at the Office of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.