The proposed removal of the Heritage Advisory Committee is a cause of great concern to environmentalists and heritage experts, who described it as “a step backwards”.
The committee does not appear in the draft law setting up the new planning authority, which is due to be discussed when Parliament resumes after the summer recess.
The committee has two panels, one advising on cultural heritage and the other on natural heritage. These are considered to be instrumental in raising issues of concern in development applications.
The reaction by environmentalists and heritage experts coincides with the Environment and Planning Commissioner’s stand that the proposed planning and environment law amendments were a significant step backwards with regard to transparency, accountability and access to public scrutiny.
Din l-Art Ħelwa, a non-governmental organisation that works to safeguard the country’s historic, artistic and natural heritage, made it clear in its feedback to the government on the proposed laws that the advisory committee should not be abolished.
“Advisory committees assist the planning authority to take well-informed decisions on applications. Involving advisory expertise helps the board to make the best possible decision; removing such committees is another retrograde step,” the organisation said.
DLĦ stressed that the committee’s removal would reduce transparency in processing development applications. The feedback from the committee’s two panels on any development was published on the planning authority’s website, allowing public scrutiny of the process.
Any concerns raised by the Heritage Advisory Committee had to be addressed by the case officer when presenting recommendations to the board.
It has often voiced its objections or concerns on development, even when the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage gave its go-ahead, as happened in applications related to the demolition of three 400-year-old townhouses in the Naxxar village core.
Architect and heritage expert Edward Said, a former member of the committee, said its removal was worrying: “Its role was crucial considering the lack of resources available to the superintendence.
“Moreover, the superintendence does not include architects trained in conservation and heritage. This is a step backwards to the detriment of both cultural heritage as well as natural heritage.
“While it was an advisory body, and its recommendations were sometimes overruled, they were taken on board most of the time,” he said.
The decision would need to be countered by strengthening resources at the superintendence, which was set up to ensure the protection and accessibility of the country’s cultural heritage. The superintendence was overburdened but there was no sign its resources would be boosted.
The suspicion was that the committee’s removal was another move to eliminate obstacles to development because the government was seen to be accommodating developers as payback for electoral support.
Land use issues remained a controversy that was becoming a noose around the government’s neck, Mr Said added.
Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar said that dismantling the advisory committee was yet another measure through which politicians would gain total control of the planning authority, eliminating any possible obstacles to development.
“The Heritage Advisory Committee was made up of independent experts, not Mepa employees. They were free to speak up and give impartial consultation on cases that posed a threat to the country’s ecology or heritage.
“Their words carried great weight. The committee’s dismantling further undermines the democratic and impartial values the planning authority is supposed to uphold,” FAA said.
caroline.muscat@timesofmalta.com