The Mepa reform introduced by the current Labour government has brought about a worrying trend, which is to have entities engage in a rather unorthodox form of consultation, that of deducing a ‘no objection’ from a lack of reply.

Some months back the Sliema Council sent in an objection on an application for the internal demolition of a townhouse in Manwel Dimech Street (PA4467/15) which, as you can guess, was to replace the house with yet another blockof apartments.

The council pointed out the need to safeguard some of the internal architectural features of this house. At screening stage, the Heritage Planning Unit (HPU) requested the Planning Directorate to consult the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) in view of the proposed demolition works.

The HPU noted that although the building had been modified, it still retained a number of architectural features such as the main staircase, hallway and a spiral staircase. The CHAC was consulted, however it did not submit comments within the stipulated timeframe. A no objection was creatively inferred by the Planning Authority.

The HPU took exactly the same stand as the Sliema council on the architectural features, but as the CHAC did not reply within the tight timeframe, Mepa very conveniently decided that a ‘no objection’ is being assumed.  This is unacceptable. Either the timeframes are ridiculous, or the cultural entities are understaffed. Whatever the reason, having our heritage experts not being given enough time to reply is deplorable. To boot the ‘no reply’ gets equated to a ‘no objection’.  This is not the way applications should be assessed if we really care for our heritage. The process should stall until the entities responsible for heritage are in a position to carry out the required assessments and a more cautious approach is urgently called for.

UCAs are part and parcel of our historical identity and a living testament of everyday life in our old village cores

Absurdly, the entity which expressed its views on the heritage value of the house was overlooked, while the entity which did not reply was given weight in the final assessment. Needless to add that the views of the council were completely ignored. Another one bites the dust.

This trend of engaging in silent consultation has also been adopted with respect to assessments on the crucial issue of the sewerage system. A case in point is the Planning Authority’s consultation on the 38-storey Townsquare development with respect to the impact of this project on the drainage system in Tignè.

The case officer’s report does not delve into the issue at all. The report, in passing, states that the Water Services Corporation were consulted on July 20, 2015 and yet almost one year later, in June 2016, it is stated that no reply was received to date and that therefore the Planning Directorate is considering that the WSC has no objection.

It is scandalous that on the crucial issue of the impact of this mega-project on the drainage infrastructure, the WSC, the authority on drainage, has not given any assessment.

Such tall building projects cannot be assessed without the consultation reply from the WSC. Should the drainage infrastructure not cope with the influx of tall buildings, this will spell environmental and economic disaster for Malta.

While it is acceptable to find means to improve the efficiency of the red tape related to planning applications, systems cannot be introduced to the detriment of the obligations of the Planning Board to safeguard our built heritage and ensure that the infrastructure is well equipped for the kind of development we shall witness under Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s policy of replicating Dubai and Singapore in our towns.

There were many imperfections in the planning process under previous governments, however there were at least certain safeguards which protected our built heritage and our village cores. One crucial element was the protection afforded to our Urban Conservation Areas.

Under the current Labour government, case officer reports assessing apartment applications within UCAs now havea standard reply to circumvent theheight protection.

With magnificent ease the case officers now twist the logic of protecting our most important heritage by stating that the height limitations within UCAs, as established in the local plans, have been superseded by SPED Policy UO2,3 which advocates a contextual approach towards controlling building height within UCAs.

The contextual approach is not interpreted as being the church steeple or the legibility of the old houses from centuries past, but some block of apartments at the far end of the street which is used as a pretext to savagely corrupt our historical urban centres. We don’t learn from previous mistakes, we repeat them.

UCAs are part and parcel of our historical identity and a living testament of everyday life in our old village cores. Façade outlines may only be appreciated when their outline is not tampered with. Adding floors will desecrate the building heritage present in our UCAs.

The great value of our UCAs does not lie solely in the individual beauty of buildings contained in such historical parts of towns and villages, but also in the harmony and authenticity which is present within the entire street or ‘pjazza’.

No amount of attentive design will mitigate the inevitable ruin which is resulting from the current approach of height preservation being tampered with.

Church domes will be obfuscated; new materials will jar with the old patina.

“The new Planning Authority will secure a balanced and sustainable environment for our community and provide a better quality of life through a sustainable land use planning system.”

These are not my words, but the mission statement of the Authority, on paper.

paul.radmilli@gov.mt

Paul Radmilli is a PN Sliema local councillor.