The former head of the Valletta and Cottonera rehabilitation committees Ray Bondin, also a former Nationalist MP, fired a broadside at everyone involved in what he termed the “widespread destruction of our heritage” in a public lecture two weeks ago.
Dr Bondin did not mince his words on the state of affairs of conservation in Malta – holding ministers, MEPA, architects, University, MCAST, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the Committee of Guarantee and the Restoration Unit responsible for the “shabbiness” with which our national heritage is managed today.
Ray Bondin today occupies a senior post at Heritage Malta, after the resources and infrastructure minister Ninu Zammit recently dissolved the three committees Bondin himself spearheaded from inception – namely the Valletta, Mdina and Cottonera Rehabilitation Committees.
Although never committing himself to contesting the next general elections, Dr Bondin was recently seen flirting with Alternattiva Demokratika, namely during an AD press conference championing his position on the restoration of Malta’s 27km of fortifications built by the Knights.
“We seem to forget that heritage is Malta’s only asset,” Bondin said in his opening comments at the public lecture organised by Heritage Malta. “We treat it in the most shabby way possible.”
Although admitting that in the past 20 years Malta has improved with regard to heritage conservation awareness, he pre-qualified his lament saying, “My story is, however, quite a negative one.”
Bondin addressed the issue of insufficient information about heritage, with Malta still lacking a national inventory. “One hears of important findings in the American Embassy area, but no information is given. In Mdina we found extremely important remains but we were ordered to cover everything up. Can we say that we have systems in place that really protect our heritage? Not at all. In reality, a complex organisational system on paper does not function well at all”.
He blamed this partly on the complete confusion that appears to exist at ministerial level, stating that although conservation should be the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism and Culture, at least four other ministers have their fingers in the pie, including “the Minister for IT-whatever”, he quipped, “which has suddenly become the ministry responsible for the super mega-projects.”
In his lecture Bondin recognised that through MEPA, the system has become more transparent although he said the authority fails heritage terribly by turning a blind eye to many unacceptable proposals, including the destruction and conversion of heritage beyond recognition.
Bondin mentioned as an example that Valletta, a protected World Heritage city, has suffered a continuous increase of extra levels to existing buildings, as well as rooftop swimming pools or “water features” as they were recently called in some MEPA applications. He is also disappointed at the lack of respect shown to historic buildings when converted for modern use. On this issue he sarcastically pointed out that, “the poor modern man cannot be expected to go out of his bedroom to the bathroom or not to have an enormous swimming pool even in a restricted area”.
Redirecting his attack towards MEPA, Bondin reminded the 15-odd audience members that MEPA’s case officers are untrained and that it no longer employs a conservation architect.
“Any MEPA application can be submitted on the basis of three photos of the façade… in many cases, these are poor quality, sometimes taken in darkness or at impossible angles. They are never enough. In any case no application will show photos of the interior unless they are specifically requested by the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) or other levels within the system. How can it be possible that we even accept an application for a demolition of a house when we do not even have the photos of what is being demolished? Unless a good case officer sees the value of an important farmhouse the proposal will not be referred to the HAC,” he added.
In 2006 MEPA approved 700 applications for demolition with a good number of properties still being in good shape. “The applications coming in for demolition are incredible and the architects stop at nothing.”
On architects, he said they will not admit to removing any trees in development applications, “but we all know about applications where an enormous Norfolk Island pine was ignored, for instance. This happens continuously,” he said, referring to one story MaltaToday covered over the planned steamrolling of the tree in Sliema.
Bondin went on to criticise the general creativity and skill of architecture in Malta: “Most of the new architecture has such bad detailing and the really well designed and beautiful buildings are an exception.”
On construction and development, he disapproves of current trends such as façadism (when the interior is destroyed and the façade conserved), saying that this is looked down on everywhere else in the world, whereas in Malta it is on the increase.
The former MP also passed a few abrasive remarks on consultation, or rather, the lack of it. “The Cultural Advisory Committee and the National Heritage Advisory Committee are often either not consulted or plainly ignored. The Restoration Unit has been turned into a personal ministerial body that works only where the minister insists and to standards approved by the minister himself. The Committee of Guarantee, on the other hand, was a good idea. The problem with this is that it does not really function well because it is under funded and lacks staff. This committee is meant to be a forum of discussion where all stakeholders meet. In the few instances where it is advised it is ignored. This committee should be pro-active instead of waiting for reports to come in. It must act as an Ombudsman over everything and everyone.”
On underfunding, Dr Bondin revealed that organisations such as the Integrated Heritage Management Team, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, MEPA and Heritage Malta itself are terribly understaffed. “Last week we heard that funding for heritage projects is constant and positive. I do not see it that way. If funding remains at the same level this means that the actual monetary allocation available is going down… MEPA does not have enough staff to perform monitoring. We all know how some developers work. They would certainly not phone the Superintendent to come and have a look at what they found but rather cover it up immediately.”
He also pointed out the difference between understaffing due to lack of funds, and understaffing due to lack of qualified personnel. On this, he turned his guns onto the educational system. “I have to point fingers as well at the University and the way it produces architects,” he said while mentioning that the attitude of most architectural students shows no interest in restoration – a situation he termed as “impossible” for a country like Malta. He was also disappointed by the way Malta stopped sending architects abroad for training in conservation – an effort that had come in two bouts: once in the mid 1980s and another time in the early 1990s, but that was about it.
“I would wish to see how much we are investing in our human resources, in training at all levels. We hardly train conservators. How can we as a country be content with the amount of conservators we are training at all levels? What have we done wrong? What are we doing wrong? Is it true that part of the problem is the fact that we are not issuing the warrants for conservators and thus there is no real control on who does conservation work. Why go for a Bighi course when you could be working as a conservator just as well without anyone saying anything?”
As often happens, MEPA took the most severe beating. Bondin stressed the unfairness of how submissions to MEPA for major projects are “more often than not pushed through in the briefest way”, forgetting the heritage element even “in important areas such as the Grand Harbour… We all know that the cruise industry needs more berthing places but we must also protect the city of Valletta. We cannot play with the physiognomy of the city at this stage.”
Bondin also spoke about the €30 million programme for the rehabilitation of the bastions over a seven-year period, saying that this monetary allocation should not be promoted as part of Malta’s Heritage budget as “these are outstanding funds, long overdue that in any case will not solve all the problems of our fortifications.”
In a separate comment to MaltaToday, Dr Bondin revealed a detail about Malta’s “pending” application for inclusion of the bastions as a UNESCO world heritage site. “Malta had applied for inclusion of the ‘harbour fortifications of Malta’ for the UNESCO World Heritage List. The UN agency had written a letter to the Government of Malta dated 27 July 1999 requesting some changes in the nomination dossier. No response was ever sent.”
He didn’t leave his own employer out, either. Towards the end of his speech Bondin said that “Heritage Malta by law also has an enormous responsibility and certainly it is the most functional of all the different bodies that have been set up. However, to be able to take on its role seriously it must be beefed up with more funding and more personnel. It must truly become the national agency and government must use it as such…” but, Bondin asked: “how can it function as a national agency when it is sidestepped by the same government in handing over sites to others?”