A MEPA case officer’s mistake may have been the reason why the authority has approved the pulling down of an old balcony in Sliema and replaced with an aluminium one.

For the two permits adduced by the case officer to justify the demolition of the old balcony in St Vincent Street have nothing to do with the house to which the balcony pertains.

One relates to the Labour Party club, whose shabby balcony is at 3, St Vincent Street, four doors down from the house to which the application refers, 7, St Vincent Street.

The other permit regards a shop front that is round the corner, at The Strand.

What seems to have happened is that the Farida balcony application (7, St Vincent Street) shows up on the MEPA map on two different adjoining sites. The case officer didn’t even query which the right one was, and obviously didn’t go on site as he would have realised there was a mistake somewhere. Instead he just jumped to conclusions and issued the permit, which will ruin an almost untouched early 1800s facade and an exceptionally handsome balcony.

This is exactly what is going to happen more often due to the latest e-mail instructions that put MEPA employees under pressure to process applications faster in order to earn their production bonus. This, say many who are concerned at this turn of events, turns the whole process into a sham: is MEPA a regulatory body or a pastizzi factory?

The case officer wrote: “The existing building contains two open balconies at first floor level and two timber closed balconies and a larger open balcony at second floor level – all in traditional designs and materials. However, a number of developments have led to changes which include unsympathetic shop fronts at ground floor and the removal of a closed timber balcony at first floor by virtue of permit PB 1865/91.

“Normally there is a presumption towards retaining traditional timber balconies, however given the fact that a permit has already been issued for the replacement of the adjacent balcony, and that the existing balcony is ‘deteriorated’, the proposal is considered acceptable.”

The case officer in his report is basing everything on a permit to change a balcony on this facade granted 15 years ago, and the fact that a shop front has already ruined it but:

* This house is untouched. The next one may have had a change of balcony or shop added but as anyone can see the integrity of this lovely facade is untouched.

* The balcony is not in such a bad state that it can’t be repaired. MEPA regulations about old houses says “There shall be a presumption against demolition even if the house is dilapidated”. Surely this should apply even more in the case of balconies on which there is such a high preservation drive.

In issues where applicants complain over different treatment for similar cases, they are told “the regulations have changed since then”. In the 15 years since that permit was issued, the regulations have changed beyond recognition. MEPA wasn’t even set up at that time, so how can they quote such an outdated precedent in this case?

Most importantly, several homeowners have been penalised for converting insignificant, unsafe old balconies to aluminium. How can MEPA now justify the demolition of such a fine specimen on such a handsome house?