A five-storey block rising by Villa Bijou, an architectural gem in Rabat, has been described as yet another example of what can happen to built heritage through failure to protect its context.
It has raised questions about why the property in Triq Ġorġ Borg Olivier was never scheduled, despite its high heritage value, paving the way for neighbouring developments that would not respect the context and negatively impact the prestigious villa.
The flats are “rearing their ugly head” over it, compromising its visual integrity and harmony forever, according to Tony Cremona-Barbaro, who has been engaged in a 10-year battle to protect the context of his own unique 17-century Villa Barbaro, in Tarxien.
Expressing shock, he has turned his attention to what he deemed one of the finest examples of 19th century architecture that never even started the fight and is being engulfed.
One of Villa Bijou’s owners, Irene Bache, said they had not objected to PA 07632/18 on Inguanez Street, round the corner. Having missed the looming development, they had just been presented with a “fait accompli” and informed that works were starting.
Unaware of what was happening, Bache said the result is “absolutely awful”.
The abandoned, inherited villa had been restored, abiding by all regulations. A wall was built and tall trees planted between it and the Triq Inguanez houses, only to end up “extensively overlooked” by developments all the way down the narrow side street.
Bache pointed out that the block, although particularly intrusive, was merely the one that could be seen from the main road. Others had risen along Inguanez Street, marring the garden.
“The road all the way down to the bottom of the garden is a perfect example of what is going on all over Malta,” Bache deplored.
Until genuine, committed planners are given a say at the Planning Authority, we can expect no better
Previously a two-floor house, with a garden backing the side of Villa Bijou, the development brought to the fore yet again the detrimental effect of the controversial Annex 2 of Development Guidance 2015, which allows for buildings to be taller.
In the case of the villa, the neighbouring construction rises even higher because its basement is level with its sloping garden and is particularly close.
Almost resigned to the fact that it was useless to object, Bache also pointed to plans to develop the Verdala Hotel towards the bottom of the garden, which would impact on the historical house too.
“Essentially, this architectural gem has been subjected to institutional vandalism and I shudder to think what this monstrosity must look like from the garden,” Cremona-Barbaro said in highlighting the case that sparked outrage.
Comparing Villa Bijou to Villino Zammit, in Sliema, and Villa Navillus, in Attard, he described what was happening as “shocking”, saying no attempt had been made to mitigate the disaster by ordering the use of stone on the back, rather than concrete.
The PA was so indifferent to the resulting impact that it did not even impose a style that was more in keeping with the adjacent property rather than the “glaring modern eyesore”, he said, pointing to its square panoramic windows.
Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, which had campaigned for years to have Villa Guardamangia protected, highlighted that, to this day, hundreds of historic sites and monuments are not.
Had Villa Bijou been scheduled, a buffer zone would have been created, it said.
FAA’s coordinator Astrid Vella said the case posed many questions.
“The writing is on the wall. The case officer had presented a thorough report, highlighting the many reasons why this application could not be approved, with some issues addressed by retaining the façade,” she said.
The report had included the fact that it would have “a visual impact on the scheduled property at the back of the site”.
The permit was issued despite the objections of both the case officer and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, which had said the site footprint was located partially within the Urban Conservation Area and also an Area of Archaeological Importance of Rabat and Mdina, meaning it was highly sensitive.
Yet, it seems “obvious” the Planning Authority board was intent on pushing this through, she said.
“This case is living proof of how Malta’s heritage protection and planning regime has been corrupted and enfeebled by regulations drawn up to give a free hand to developers, implemented by board members determined to ignore any planning and protection measures,” FAA said.
“This is the result of having key policies like the 2015 Design Guidance drawn up by people known for their questionable professional ethics, with committee members handpicked for their development-at-all-costs approach and puppet boards lacking even a semblance of independence.
“Until genuine, committed planners are given a say at the PA and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is given the last word on heritage, we can expect no better.”