The planning authority ignored a recommendation by the Heritage Superintendence in 2005 to schedule a 17th century extension to the Qormi armoury, the Fondazzjoni Ulied Ħal-Qormi has claimed.

It said that after ignoring the recommendation to list and protect the building, it "offended the Maltese" by binding the developer by a mere €1,870 guarantee if the building was damaged.

The foundation and Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar held a press conference on site late last month and claimed the structure, which was adjacent to the armoury, was in danger of being demolished and replaced with flats.

However, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had clarified that the extension to the armoury used by the Knights of Malta in Qormi would not be demolished but would be conserved and fully restored.

Replying to Mepa's comments, the foundation said the building should have been scheduled and pointed out that the bank guarantee was a pittance.

The developer was bound by a €1,870 bank guarantee to fully comply with the plans. If the building was damaged during construction, he would be forced to restore it to its original state.

In the full permit, Mepa imposed the conservation of the extension without any form of excavation beneath. The developer was also ordered to keep an open space of 20 feet between the flats and the hall and include a garden in his plans.

However, the foundation queried whether Mepa took action against the person who was responsible for pulling down the original wall that was nearly 400 years old, the façade of the original arched remissi (garages), the remissi, a spiral staircase and the coat of arms. These were among other architectural features that had disappeared, the foundation said.

Keeping a 20-foot open space was "ridiculous" when a very recent development next to the property was not even one foot away, it added.

Before the outline permit was granted, Mepa's Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee carried out an on-site visit and recommended the extension be preserved against the bank guarantee. The foundation called on the committee to carry out another onsite visit to see "the ruin and the damage that has already been caused".

It criticised Mepa's comments that no objections were filed against the development. No one could see what was happening on site because the property was surrounded by a thick wall about a storey and half high, the foundation said.

"It was only when the wall was pulled down, together with the arched remissi, that passers-by could see the remains of the historical building and the scandalous damage that was done to the property," it said.

If there were no objections, then did Mepa feel justified in allowing the demolition of a property even when the property had been recommended for an adequate level of scheduling by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage in 2005, the foundation asked.

Moreover, it also asked, what would have been the outcome of an objection when Mepa ignored the recommendations of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the Heritage Advisory Committee and the case officer's recommendation to refuse permission.

Asked to react to these claims, a spokesman said Mepa would issue a reply today.