|
James Debono
A substantial part of a school described as “a benchmark in the history of modern architecture”, has been demolished despite a damning report by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s auditor Joe Falzon.
The report by Falzon, dean of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Malta, was issued a few weeks before demolition started. The episode continues to confirm MEPA’s disregard of their internal auditor and raises questions about the existence of any checks and balances at the authority.
Falzon’s investigation was prompted by public calls for the conservation of this building by the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers. MEPA’s decision In a report by MEPA’s auditor, Joseph Falzon raised a number of questions which have “serious implications on the duty of the MEPA to safeguard the national heritage.”
Falzon notes this is the first case in which he encountered a positive recommendation by the Planning Directorate to an application for demolishing, with serious objections from MEPA’s Integrated Heritage Management and the Heritage Advisory Committee.
The auditor described the arguments brought forward by the case officer to accept the demolition of this building are, at best, derisory. “At worst, they lead to the suspicion of ulterior motives and possible undue pressure on the case officer from external or internal sources.”
He also warned that on the basis of this precedent, the owner of any building of architectural importance may obtain a permit to demolish this building provided that the owner cannot accommodate a use which is acceptable to him in the building.
In his conclusions Falzon said the claim by the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers that MEPA failed in its duties to safeguard the national architectural heritage is sustained.
He also recommended that disciplinary action should be taken against the manager of the IHM, the area team manger in Gozo, and the case officer for writing a report “with intentional misleading conclusions, contrary to the MEPA policies.”
MEPA reacted to the auditor’s preliminary report by expressing its disagreement with Falzon’s conclusions. It also expressed its support for the views expressed by the area team manager and case officer.
“While the architectural merits of the existing building may be one of the considerations, other factors were also put in balance with a favourable recommendation reached in the end,” MEPA said.
MEPA also argued that the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage has enough power at his disposal through the Cultural Heritage Act to ensure the protection of our Cultural Heritage if he deems it to be the case.
Yet according to Falzon no consultation with the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had taken place. Despite MEPA’s objections, Falzon stuck to the same conclusions in his final report saying that the audit office did not consider that any amendments to the report should be made.
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
|
