|
James Debono
The acting Superintendent of the Cultural Heritage has strongly reacted to a declaration by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority that the superintendence had not used its power at law to protect a historical building in Ghar il-Lembi Street, in Sliema.
Nathanial Cutajar said MEPA should face its responsibilities for ignoring the advice of the superintendence after it authorised the demolition of the old naval clinic, rather than cite “inexisting powers of the Superintendence.”
On Monday, MEPA’s development control commission gave the go-ahead for the demolition of the two-storey house, to make way for basement garages, a shop and overlying apartments, including a penthouse.
The superintendence objected to the development, recommending MEPA that the building be scheduled at an appropriate level, so as to guarantee its protection.
But on Monday a MEPA spokesman told the Times the superintendence had the power by law to protect the building, but had not used it.
The acting Superintendent acknowledged that MEPA had every right to ignore the recommendations of the superintendence, as it had done in this case, by granting a full development permit to demolish the building, and by not scheduling this same property as recommended. But Cutajar insisted MEPA should acknowledge their responsibility in proceeding with their decision, and present the grounds for their decision.
“It is therefore a matter of special concern that their response on the matter avoided clarifying the grounds for the decision, and instead cited inexistent ‘legal powers’ of the Superintendence,” Nathaniel Cutajar told MaltaToday.
The superintendence is also denying MEPA’s statement that it had the legal power to stop the development. Cutajar insists permits for development are processed and decided by MEPA in the light of the Development Planning Act.
He said the Cultural Heritage Act does not give the superintendence the power to veto a MEPA permit, either before or after issue of a permit.
According to the same Act, the legal role of the superintendence on such applications is an advisory one, and that it should “advise and coordinate with the Malta Environment and Planning Authority”.
The superintendence is also irked by the fact it had not been consulted by MEPA before the outline development permit was granted in May 2005.
“In granting the outline permit, MEPA had already prejudiced the physical integrity and conservation of this building,” Cutajar said. The superintendence was only consulted over the full development permit back in September 2005.
In the course of this consultation, the superintendence inspecting the property and told MEPA its position on the application, namely that demolition was unacceptable and that the application should be refused.
The superintendence also recommended the property should be scheduled by MEPA to guarantee its protection. But the only legal power it has is to “commend for scheduling such sites and buildings as he deems should be scheduled.”
Scheduling is a process undertaken by MEPA in terms of the Development Planning Act, and is intended to adequately protect archaeological sites and the built heritage that might be destroyed by development.
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
|
