I was taken aback reading the editorial Extension of St John's Museum (August 11) as most of it seems to be taken from the St John's Foundation website.

While I understand the author recommending caution, I also expect both sides of the case to be represented. As it stood, it read like a press release from the St John's Foundation fan club!

I have followed this subject closely, and while I agree that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be undertaken, I have also read that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) has called the excavation project "a non-starter" due to the risk to the Co-Cathedral's structural safety.

Now Mepa is not exactly anti-development, so I feel this is an important comment even before the EIA. Mepa reports that leading heritage authorities also share this view as voiced by a leading architect speaking for the Valletta Council, so why was this not included in the editorial?

I am honestly surprised that the editorial of a newspaper with a keen sense of history and religion such as The Times has nothing to say about the conversion of Malta's most ancient and noble cemetery into a shop - well, that's what visitors centres do, sell calendars and postcards. Talk about the Disneyfication of heritage! Do I hear 40 coins of silver jangling somewhere?

Another thing that struck me about this editorial is where it says, "the two possible ways forward should be subjected to an independent Environmental Impact Assessment to ensure that whichever option is chosen will not pose any potential or real risks to the Co-Cathedral or any of the historical adjacent buildings". Firstly, this assumes that the two applications submitted by the foundation are the only possible solutions to this situation. This is not the case as other solutions have been put forward, not least the suggestion by Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar that an adjacent building be renovated in order to house the collection.

Secondly, the words "whichever option is chosen" suggests that it is a foregone conclusion that one of the two options submitted by the foundation will indeed be chosen. How could they possibly know this?

I respectfully submit that this editorial has starved us of any details other than the foundation's views, and it is the foundation that is saying: "My mind is made up. Please don't confuse me with the facts".