Yet another property forming part of the island’s cultural heritage stands in peril.

In April last year an application was filed with the Planning Authority to have a nineteenth century vernacular building torn down and replaced with a seven-storey apartment block. The nineteenth century building, sited in what once formed part of rural Msida, served as the stables of an old farm estate.

As part of its processing, the application was sent to a number of internal and external consultants to the Planning Authority, to seek their recommendation on the proposal. Amongst the entities consulted were the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage and the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage consulted the Planning Authority twice, once in June 2018, and again in July of the same year, each time alerting the Planning Authority to the property’s historical and architectural value. The Superintendence outrightly objected to the demolition of the property.

The Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee, an internal consultee to the Planning Authority on heritage matters, also objected to the proposal. The Committee had carried out an inspection of the property, following which it established that the nineteenth century stable was adorned with heritage features and was indeed of architectural value. The Committee stated (despite the architect having claimed otherwise) that the building was ‘not beyond restoration and preservation’ and given its historical and architectural value, should not be demolished.

Following the unfavourable feedback from the heritage consultants, the architect was expected to submit an amended proposal that took the official expert recommendations of both entities into consideration. The architect did submit new drawings, but the proposal remained unchanged with the entire structure still set for demolition 

The case officer responsible for processing the application prepared the report and given the serious heritage concerns raised and objections put forward by both heritage entities, recommended the application for refusal.

It was only at that point that the applicant decided to amend the proposal, still only minimally. New drawings were again submitted with the only difference from the original plan being the proposed retention of the facade. The rest of the building that in fact supported that façade (all of which was deemed to be of value and not just a singular outer wall) would still be pulled down and replaced with a seven-storey apartment block.

The application was up for a decision by the Planning Commission in March 2019.

Despite not being an expert in heritage issues itself, the Commission considered the token measure of retaining only the façade, an adequate solution to address the heritage concerns and approved the near-total demolition of the property without the Superintendence or Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee having ever been consulted on the final proposal. Instead of seeking their expert recommendation the Commission ordered the applicant to simply submit a Restoration Method Statement outlining works on the façade, and to have this inept document verified by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage after the application was approved.

Since neither the Superintendence nor the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee had ever stated that the façade was the only feature of value, how would retaining only the façade serve as a just measure to mitigate the seriously adverse heritage implications of this application? The heritage issues flagged by both entities were essentially thrown out of the window.

The question then remains, why consult the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage or the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee at all, if there is no intention of taking on their expert recommendation?

By ignoring these entities, the consultation process basically serves as nothing more than a time and resource consuming exercise that simply adds to the illusion that heritage issues are somehow being considered.

The Planning Commission failed to ensure the safeguarding of this building of historical and architectural value. It is the traditional structure in its entirety that truly attests to the building’s worth, through its characteristic features such as the traditionally built ceilings, and the arrangement of the internal spaces that provide a window into the daily lives of its tenants.

Through façadism (the term used for the practice of tearing down a building and retaining only its façade) we are not preserving our heritage but illustrating our lack of appreciation and understanding of it. It is akin to ripping out the pages of a book and expecting to grasp its content from the cover alone.

The decision to approve this development is being appealed by heritage NGO Din l-Art Helwa.

Tara Cassar is an architect focusing on planning policies and environmental issues related to land-use, active with a number of local eNGOs.

[email protected]