From Mr V. S. Bianchi

The full page article which appeared in The Malta Independent last Sunday would normally have been ignored had the intervention not been underlined by a whole series of false statements and innuendos designed to convey something very wrong and possibly illicit in the granting by MEPA of a permit for the restoration and rehabilitation of an exceptional property in Valletta.

I would have expected the writer in his official capacity or otherwise to ask to see me, when his views would have been listened to, and such meeting would have given him the opportunity to view the Restoration Method statement which consists of 82 pages and 92 photographs, further reports by the Malta Centre of Restoration, the Malta University Services, as well as a complete study on the manner the carving would be treated.

Plans and revised plans are numerous, and have always remained available for all to see. In this very complete and detailed document he would have found the answer to all the points he thought fit to raise.

I can therefore hardly understand how one so misinformed can pretend and seek to convince.

I only need mention one instance: what the writer calls paintings on the walls when in fact the experts studying the house have all agreed that these are not paintings but lines of “stenciling,” totally alien to the character of the house, and have no artistic value whatsoever. Nevertheless, after much deliberation it was agreed that since these may have represented the “Fashion of the Period” it would perhaps be wise to conserve them. On the advice of the experts it was decided that the best way to conserve and protect these was by covering them up.

The permit, with all its reservations, was only granted after three years of meticulous study of the project during which all the relevant authorities and all interested parties had the opportunity to raise their objections and provide their input. The article cannot remain unchallenged in so far as it tends to imply a number of irregularities including what, in the opinion of the writer, is a sudden and inexplicable change of mind in the granting by MEPA of this permit. Such an assertion casts doubt on the integrity of all those involved with the house, not least the authorities at MEPA and legal advice is being sought on the matter.

It is indeed a shame that unwarranted and misinformed interference, of which the article under reference is a perfect example, only serves to discourage owners of private property from even considering any restoration to their buildings which must go a long way to explain the dirty and pitiful state of most, giving our unfortunate capital city its very shabby appearance.

Vivian S. Bianchi