The Mepa board last Thursday faced a raft of appeals urging a reconsideration of scheduling.

Apart from the scheduling of stone balconies in Victoria and of boathouses and quarries at Dwejra, the appeals also regarded buildings of some historical importance in Malta: The Rialto Cinema in Cospicua, the Xarolla catacombs in Żurrieq and the Villa Bonici in Sliema.

Former minister Ninu Zammit submitted a request for further information/reconsideration so as to clarify in what way the scheduling exercise will affect the zoning of his and surrounding properties in view of the predominant building heights of the area.

The Heritage Planning Unit stated that scheduling is not intended to establish zoning of area, but prevent any possible visual and physical impact on the scheduled archaeological features which may arise from development, such as excavation works. Furthermore, Perit Zammit’s property lies in an area affected by the Development Zone Rationalisation Exercise which is subject to a specific clause stating that the area has to undergo an archaeological investigation before its inclusion and furthermore, the map for the area as approved by parliament clearly indicates that only low density detached dwellings will be permitted in the area.

It was Mr Zammit himself, who when a minister, had been instrumental in preserving the Xarolla catacombs which were discovered almost by accident.

However, he pointed out, Mepa has recently permitted three-storey buildings on two sides of this area of archaeological importance. Mepa chairman Austin Walker promised to investigate this while it was also pointed out this area was the result of a rationalisation exercise done by parliament.

The Rialto

The Rialto Cinema was built by Perit England Sr on Art Deco lines. It is best known for its cobalt blue glass which stands out especially at nighttime when it is lit from inside.

The building is now owned by the Ċentru Lokali Partit Laburista, Cospicua and its ground floor is an HSBC branch.

Perit Darren Sciberras representing the owners sent a letter requesting reconsideration of the “proposed” scheduling together with a notarial deed of the property. The request for reconsideration cites the following reasons:

1 The internal fabric of this important building has undergone several modifications and alterations in the past, most of which are significant in nature and scale;

2 The activity accommodated in the Rialto is not in demand as it was in its heyday and the continued active conservation of the landmark is only possible if further modifications are allowed to the interior to permit contemporary activities;

3 While there is “general appreciation of the external building envelope, which should be conserved with only slight modifications” there should be no restrictions whatsoever on the interior; and

4 No restrictions should be imposed on the activities to be accommodated within the building envelope save those that may create a deleterious impact on the environment.

In reply, the Heritage Planning Unit said it is in agreement with some of the points raised in the request for reconsideration, however does not agree with some others. While some modifications were carried out to the interior of the building (such as removal of seats that are still stacked in another room and partial removal of soffit), and that the exterior envelope of the building is one of its most important characteristics, any changes to the proposed use of the interior is to be subject to a planning application that is sensitive to the value of the site and compatible with local plan policies. This is in line with the provision policy Grade 2 as defined by Structure Plan policy UCO 7.

There are other scheduled cinemas and theatres in Malta within which uses other than the original one have been permitted as well as some modifications to the property.

Complete lack of restriction is not possible though since this may cause irreversible damage to the building, however applications for modifications and change of use that are sensitive to the value of the property and in line with policies will be considered.

However, Perit Sciberras admitted the owners have no idea what can be made of the building, given that cinemas are out of fashion and that a supermarket would not be allowed in the building envelope.

It was noted that MP Roderick Galdes absented himself from the meeting while this issue was being discussed.

Villa Bonici

The last building to be considered was Villa Bonici in Sliema.

This is a Patrician building whose front door (much dilapidated) is in Manwel Dimech Street. The villa proper has a formal garden at the back with a beautiful staircase, followed by some fields at the back which have some interesting features such as a long balcony on the side, a unique structure called a ‘folly’, a Nymphaeum and also a tennis court which served as an open air cinema years ago.

The building used to extend to the Gżira seafront but today only one door from what used to be a series of arches is extant.

The garden and the fields have suffered from huge neglect over the past years and sometimes the vegetation that has grown makes it impossible to see what used to be the original lines of the site.

To further complicate matters, there are two sets of owners who each presented their own reasons for objecting to the scheduling.

Dr Edwin Mintoff submitted a request for reconsideration on behalf of the owners Agnes Gera de Petri Testaferrata, Nicholas Jensen and Irene Bache. A title deed drawn up by Prof. Ian Refalo shows that the aforementioned owners together own 40/48 parts of the property in question.

The letter by Dr Mintoff contains the following points:

1 The owners welcome the scheduling of the villa and its gardens however have some concern on the scheduling of the garden features;

2 An independent consultant was commissioned in order to assess the values of the features;

3 Some of the features (owing to their state, location and possible future redevelopment might require some form of intervention. They thus reserve the right to carry out complementary modifications that may be required;

4 The owners requested that they be consulted during the preparation of the development brief for the area so that the restoration and rehabilitation will be considered as part of the redevelopment of the complex; and

5 “In the absence of a clear and unequivocal assurance that the proposed (sic) Grade 2 scheduling will not adversely affect any proposals for this site, kindly consider this as a request for reconsideration”.

To this the Heritage Planning Unit replied it is in agreement with most of the points raised in the letter and is also aware of the state of the features together with the fact that some changes may be required in case of redevelopment of the property. The concerns by this office relate to the erroneous stating of proposed scheduling when in fact the scheduling once published in the Government Gazette becomes factual as well as the reconsideration being queried as assurance that it will not affect any development proposals. Part of the reason of the scheduling is aimed at controlling future proposals for redevelopment of the site, thus this assurance cannot be given. If however the proposal for redevelopment is sensitive to the heritage issues, there should only be minor details to be tackled at the application stage. On the other hand, PA 6239/08 cannot be considered since it does not consider any merits of the gardens and features within them but only proposes the retention of the villa.

In view of the above, “this office recommends that the scheduling is retained as published while any proposals for redevelopment of the villa and formal gardens are to be tackled on their own merits during any future applications on the site. It is also recommended that the current application is withdrawn in view that the application is unacceptable in principle.”

Annamaria Spiteri Debono on her own behalf and of Carmen Preziosi gave the following reasons for reconsideration:

1 The property does not qualify for scheduling since it is not “geological, paleontological (sic), cultural, archaeological, architectural, historical, antiquarian, or artistic or of landscape importance”;

2 Grade 2 (as compared to scheduled properties in Mdina) is too high since the properties in Mdina are much older and in pristine condition;

3 The panoramic balcony was added later and thus should be unscheduled;

4 The nymphaeum is an added feature and the projected road will pass through it and thus should be unscheduled;

5 Tennis court is actually a playground paved with tiles and thus should be unscheduled;

6 The folly is a replica and the original is already scheduled thus this should be unscheduled; and

7 The caretaker’s quarters is a post-war construction and buildings of the same like in Sliema have been allowed to be redeveloped thus there is no reason why this building should not be unscheduled.

Mepa has been influenced by environmental pressure groups and neighbours of Villa Bonici whose aim is to retain the “status quo” at the expense of others.

The Heritage Planning Unit replied it is of the opinion that the request for reconsideration has not provided any technical reasons why the property should not be scheduled. Furthermore, the first reason for reconsideration is completely erroneous since if this was the case, there would have been no recommendation for scheduling in the first place. Regarding the Grading afforded to the property, this was obtained through internationally adopted assessment criteria (such as by ICOMOS) that strive to eliminate all subjectivity in such recommendations and although the property may be degraded, this does not necessarily preclude the heritage values of the property (in fact it is not one of the assessment criteria).

Regarding the values of the individual features, “this office believes that while they are protected, the scheduling covers the whole of Villa Bonici and its formal gardens and the features are part of the value of the entire site.” The tennis courts are part of the history of the site while the underground reservoirs immediately beneath them are of particular merit. “This office is not aware of the location of the original folly” (let alone its scheduling) and the caretaker’s quarters also add value to the merits of t he site in general.

In view of the above, “this office recommends that the scheduling is retained as published while any proposals for redevelopment of the villa and formal gardens are to be tackled on their own merits during any future applications on the site.” It is also recommended that the current application is withdrawn in view that the application is unacceptable in principle.

Following presentations made by Perit Mallia and Mr Gera de Petri, the board accepted to postpone its decision by three months so that an application can be submitted for the development of the site.