The late prime minister Dom Mintoff’s residence in Tarxien has been scheduled at grade one by the planning authority. For those unfamiliar with scheduling jargon, that means that it has been awarded the highest level of protection possible for a building in Malta, equivalent to the auberges and churches of Valletta, and many other historic buildings.
The Tarxien villa cannot be demolished, and any potential works now require the strictest permits and supervision. Its context is protected within a buffer zone. Proposed adjacent development has been stalled and will be treated differently to other sites in the area.
Most people resist having their properties scheduled, whatever the historic or architectural value, to perhaps be able to redevelop them in future. In this case, the Mintoff family thought otherwise and, in that sense, good for them.
The protection of heritage is always selective, as it is here in two ways. One type of selectivity is fine and inherent to the concept of heritage, but the second is not so good.
Firstly, deciding or recognising that something forms part of our heritage is a choice made by society. This does not only apply to buildings and monuments. Over time, people change the ways that they assign values and meanings to aspects of their history.
The desire to protect heritage is not restricted to architecture or archaeological sites. For instance, in 2014 Culture Minister Owen Bonnici had agreed to promote Unesco protection for the Maltese festa, as part of the world’s intangible cultural heritage. This was spearheaded by Godfrey Farrugia, and a committee was tasked with drafting a report. (I don’t know what came of this initiative).
One reason for scheduling the Tarxien villa was the cultural value which it embodies for many people. This is fine. Not everyone will share the same sentiments, but that is not the point. If many people today feel that the life of the late prime minister is part of the national heritage, then so be it. That is the nature of heritage – history, memory, cultural and social values rolled into one.
But the second type of selectivity occurs in the formal process, and this is far less acceptable. As things stand, decisions on scheduling are taken by the planning authority’s executive chairman and his committee. This is not the main planning board which grants permits but another, less well-known committee. The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage makes recommendations on scheduling to this committee but can be overruled, by perhaps just three or four people, who may not be experts by any stretch of the imagination in architectural or cultural history.
Malta’s environment and heritage authorities cannot bite back”
The way the scheduling system is handled is a completely inadequate. Decisions can be taken without satisfactory explanations and are difficult to challenge, with information hard to obtain. This works both ways – whether you want a building to be scheduled or descheduled.
This committee has the power to refuse some requests for scheduling submitted by heritage experts and supported by the Superintendence, but to go ahead with others, seemingly applying different criteria. The Tarxien villa was surely not awarded grade one scheduling on its architectural merits. By way of comparison, The Cloisters in Sliema was given only grade two scheduling. The old Villa St Ignatius at Balluta was recently refused scheduling altogether, with the committee having overruled heritage experts. Parts of the old Sea Malta building, a modernist structure, were knocked down a few months ago, in spite of its architectural value and protests by the Kamra tal-Periti and non-governmental organisations.
What are the objective criteria followed by this committee? If a main reason for scheduling the Tarxien villa was as the residence of a former prime minister, that is fine, but will the committee now also schedule the residences of other former prime ministers of Malta? As it happens, the residence of George Borg Olivier in Sliema is scheduled anyway, on its architectural merits. But what about the others? Or does some kind of cult need to develop around a former prime minister before scheduling his (or her) residence?
Will the committee now also protect other houses with large gardens similar to the Tarxien villa, and perhaps even their buffer zones? The Cloisters case indicates otherwise.
A robust and fair element of expertise should underlie decisions on what deserves to be recognised as the nation’s heritage. But decisions about what to schedule, or what to refuse, are effectively being taken by an authority not specialised in the matter, and in a manner which is not transparent or objective enough. If anyone should have the final say on cultural heritage, it is the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, which is the government entity with the most expertise on the subject.
The entire system is flawed. The planning authority lords it over everyone. The legal framework has been contrived to enable the planning authority to just forge ahead and ignore the opinions of both the heritage and environment authorities, often leaving a wake of destruction in its path. What does being an official ‘authority’ mean, if not that you are the authority in your field? But Malta’s environment and heritage authorities cannot bite back as they have weak teeth. The Planning Authority is the supreme authority in the land.
petracdingli@gmail.com