An entire wing of the historic Villa St Ignatius in St Julian’s was recently demolished days after a leading cultural heritage NGO had applied for the building to be scheduled. The villa is part of a larger property, which in the early 19th century housed the first English-speaking Jesuit College in Malta.
The story of its demolition is a sorry saga of Planning Authority incompetence, the actions of a developer and architect (both of whom with close links with the Planning Authority), weak enforcement and a Superintendent of Cultural Heritage who appears to have acted too late.
The controversial demolition of the Balluta landmark building was effected on the basis of an expired permit and in breach of the conditions laid down, which had ordered the works to be carried out within 60 days of the court order – a period which expired over three months ago. Moreover, the works were meant to be implemented under the direction of a court expert.
The project architect, Stephen Vancell – a planning officer at the Planning Authority until eleven months ago – has insisted that the works were in line with the court order. But his account does not square with the court-appointed architect’s report detailing the work to be carried out, which referred specifically to remedial works on a mezzanine floor, including reconstruction of parts of the ceiling and reinforcing internal walls.
The owner of Environmental Management Design Planning (EMDP), Mariello Spiteri, for whom Mr Vancell now works, currently sits on the board of the Planning Commission. The villa owner’s lawyer, in trying to justify the demolition, insisted that the (time-expired) permit had been issued because there had been “a danger which had been removed when the works were concluded” and in any case, “the building had no historic value”.
The Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers has pointed out that: “It was evident the works went beyond the terms of the court order as the law did not allow any remedial works to affect the integrity of a historic building even if not scheduled. The works should [have been] limited only to the removal of danger, which could include emergency propping.”
Belatedly, the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage has now issued a conservation order to protect the historic villa, describing the demolition works carried out by EMDP “as an offence in terms of the Cultural Heritage Act”. He has pointed out to the project architect in uncompromising terms that “these works are a threat to the cultural heritage value of the building and are causing damage to [the] property”.
This sorry saga is but one example of many of the Planning Authority’s inability or unwillingness – despite its very recent scheduling protection of 25 Sliema properties – to safeguard Malta’s cultural heritage from cynical and greedy developers. As the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers accurately summed up the case: “The demolition works were carried out with the blessing, or at best the ineptitude, of the PA in direct violation of its legal obligations in a manner which manifests complete disregard of procedure and a propensity for resorting to false statements and half-truths to defend its own decisions”.
Action to “reverse” the situation by ordering the reconstruction of the part destroyed in defiance of the regulations should be imposed immediately on EMDP by the Planning Authority.
This is a Times of Malta print editorial