For many years now, relentless construction has overrun every corner of this small country. Complex decisions are taken constantly on which aspects of our built heritage to preserve, and on how to go about it.
The Planning Authority is clearly not up to the task. Sadly, it is easy to point to a seemingly endless stream of bad, if not disastrous, decisions taken by the PA when it comes to the protection of built heritage.
The recent outcry at the fate of a protected building in Spinola is only the latest episode in this sorry tale. Its façade has been dismantled, moved, rebuilt and inserted into a new block of apartments, while completely ignoring the matching adjacent building. The absurd treatment of this façade is mind-boggling.
One authority with some legal powers to mitigate the destruction of our heritage is the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. Yet it does not have big enough teeth to fend off the size of the threat. It is high time that the superintendence is strengthened and given more resources and independence.
The details of the planning history of the Spinola case smack of a superintendence buckling under pressure. How could any heritage authority worth its salt approve of this monstrous outcome? Surely this is a textbook case of how not to protect built heritage?
Last week, the heritage sector was taken aback by the unexpected removal of the Superintendent for Cultural Heritage, who was swiftly replaced. No clear explanation was provided and several leading academics in the field wrote a joint letter to the government in protest.
The entire functioning of this agency should be reviewed, including the way in which its head is appointed or removed. Anyone occupying that post needs the clout to be able to stand up to pressure from the Planning Authority, from government ministries and from those developers intent on bulldozing their way to their pot of gold, whatever the cost to Malta’s built heritage.
If the government can simply blow a whistle and send regulators off the pitch without proper justification, including the Superintendent for Cultural Heritage, this undermines the strength of their position.
The scheduling system also needs restructuring. Scheduling a building at Grade 3 has been rendered practically meaningless, while Grade 2 certification is often hardly worth the paper it is written upon.
Another concern is that properties can take unacceptably long to get through the scheduling system. It is not always clear where the bottlenecks lie, but this systemic weakness must be addressed.
The medieval Santa Duminka chapel at Dingli is a recent case in point. This property lingered in the scheduling process, waiting to be listed as a protected property for several years. It was finally scheduled last month after civil society groups protested against approaching roadworks which placed the chapel under threat.
It should have been obvious that such a special, medieval site should be protected. Why was the scheduling not carried out in a more timely manner?
Whether it was the meddling fingers of government, or the construction-friendly PA, or an under-resourced superintendence, either way the problem should be addressed.
The superintendence is becoming an increasingly important regulator, which must represent and act in the interests of the public to protect Malta’s heritage.
The Planning Authority, on the other hand, regularly uses its powers to enable the obliteration of old buildings, overseeing a level of damage to our built heritage which beggars belief.
Some of this power must be taken out of their indifferent hands.