I refer to the article by Astrid Vella (April 7) which contained a number of inaccuracies. As one of the owners of the property in Għaxaq that has been dealing with the Planning Authority for the past 15 years, here are the twisted facts I am referring to.
The photos accompanying the article show an old barumbara and part of the existing property. Both buildings will be kept in the proposed new plans (see plan). The barumbara is at the very end of the plan (left side).
The article states that our property includes “large ornamental ponds”. That is totally incorrect as it only includes one concrete pond that has no historical value or prestige (except that I swam in it when I was young).
It goes on to state that we have old colonnades. This again is incorrect as most of the columns were replaced around six years ago when we held a family wedding. Apart from that, all colonnades will also be kept.
The article states we have a massive underground, arched water reservoir. That reservoir, under the present building, is also going to be kept.
The article goes on to say that the area is prone to flooding. This again is inaccurate as years ago another underground water reservoir was created just outside our own property to cater for this issue.
This was done by the government as due to a court case years back, it resulted that the flooding problem was actually created by mis-planning by the government that gave adjoining government land to residences next to our property, thus creating problems with the flow of rain water.
If it were their own property, they would not reason in the same manner
The article continues to state that the property is a Scheduled Grade 2 listed property. However, what the writer failed to mention is that the property only got scheduled after the PA Appeals Board granted an outline permit to construct three blocks of 10 units. Ample time was given for this decision to be appealed but it was not.
Then came the scheduling. They couldn’t get through the door, so they went through the window.
To quote a 2014 report by the Heritage Planning Unit, it states that “some development can be considered if guidelines are followed”. This is being stated to confirm that even the Heritage Planning Unit were not against the development.
At this stage I feel it is important to point out that the site lies outside the UCA of Għaxaq and the garden was earmarked for terraced development in the temporary provision schemes.
The article says it is “one of the few green lungs in this densely built-up area”, giving the impression that the neighbourhood depends on our area. The green lung is not only our private land but the fields just 50 metres further on could be considered as the green lungs of the village. Our property is on Hatem Street.
Coming back to Vella’s article and a press release she had a few days before, the FAA had the cheek to organise a press conference outside another property (not Palazzo Giannin) in order to give the impression that the property was in a good state and condition, once again twisting facts.
A very important factor that Vella has failed to mention is the fact that in our latest plans one can clearly see that most of the garden is not only going to be kept but would be brought back to life in order to make it a “unique complex” for the south of Malta.
In the new plans it is also being proposed that a large amount of land is left from the development to the palazzo, which shows on the right side of the plan. This is being proposed with the intention that the palazzo could either form part of the whole complex or it could be split in two.
For clarity’s sake, the area being proposed for development is marked in light brown on the plan. Clearly this is much lower than the 80 per cent mentioned in one of the FAA’s previous press releases.
To conclude, I would like to stress that in this country there seem to be many armchair critics. I am referring here to the 1,700 objections that were made through the PA portal.
Out of these 1,700 objectors, 99 per cent of them never saw our property so have no right to come out with statements such as “it should be open to the public” and other hideous comments.
I assure you if it were their own property, they would not reason in the same manner.
And finally I would like to stress that what we are proposing is a regeneration of a dilapidated property that will be brought back to life combining an element of urban sustainable green building and open space that could hopefully be enjoyed by the next generation.
I hope, in the end, common sense will prevail.
John Paris is part owner of Palazzo Giannin.