I cannot understand how Cynthia Degiorgio can claim (September 19) that no excavation is to be carried out under St John's, when the plans clearly show new corridors to be excavated, running under St John's to link the crypt to the new underground galleries. The plans also show sizeable lift shafts to be sunk down to basement level. Are these not excavations under St John's?

I doubt that the Curator is not aware of these details of the plans, though she could be discounting the crypt as part of the Cathedral and meaning that no excavation is to take place under the nave of the Cathedral. Given the nature of St John's Cathedral as a complex which includes the Oratory, crypt etc, this is a disingenuous interpretation. It is to be recalled that the excavations in St Lucia Street were not under the nave but still did irreparable damage to the frescoes in the Grandmasters' crypt.

This is not the first instance of misleading information being given by the Foundation, whose architect also wrongly claimed that the post-war structures around the graveyard are not scheduled.

It is a pity that someone with Prof. Sante Guido's years of experience in restoring St John's has not been consulted every inch of the way, which makes one wonder how thoroughly the project has been studied. Prof. Sante Guido's comment of "utter madness" related not to the existing old cisterns but to the proposed huge new galleries to be excavated to a depth of about four storeys, when several authorities on the subject have pointed to space within the St John's complex that is either under or inappropriately utilised. We also point to the fact that projects for similar excavations have been rejected out of hand, such as the proposal for underground parking by the Mosta Rotunda.

In spite of the fact that Mosta has been known for the solidity of its bedrock since the time of the Roman quarries there, Mepa immediately quashed this project due to the risk of damage to the church, with no talk of going into costly Impact Assessments.

The photo attached attests to the damage that took place at the Sliema chapel due to the excavation of a simple trench, by modern, non-vibrating methods. This is not an isolated case as extensive damage has also been caused to Burmarrad church and the church which previously stood at it-Tokk, Victoria, which had to be demolished due to damage caused by works nearby.

As to Ms Degiorgio's words that "The foundation has always put the interest of St John's Co-Cathedral first" we would like to ask how come the Foundation issued a tender for works on St John's roof which included the request for "power water washing". Even the most basic restoration practitioner knows that power washing in the vicinity of old stone and "deffun" is out of the question, as it can lead to the ingress of water through cracks and micro-fissures, which could result in damage, even years later, to the Mattia Preti wall paintings on St John's ceiling.

When this point was raised at the public hearing, the official in charge of this Foundation project was unaware of this operation commissioned by the Foundation itself.

We rest our case.