It is admirable that the Prime Minister is being active in protecting buildings of architectural value. I believe this is the first time a PM has publicly intervened to stop an application to demolish a building of cultural importance.
Lawrence Gonzi asked the Public Broadcasting Services management to withdraw a MEPA application to demolish Television House and Rediffusion House in Guardamangia, which has now been done.
And the buildings have been saved no thanks to the authority there to preserve them. The PBS management had intended to demolish the buildings and rebuild a new broadcasting station and to also include a complex of apartments and commercial premises.
However, the government intends to preserve the buildings intact, since it considers that they are good examples of mid 20th century architecture and are also broadcasting landmarks.
The listed buildings are the property of the Public Broadcasting Services (PBS), hence the government, and were built in between 1950 and 1960.
But does it have to require the intervention of the PM to ensure a listed building is protected? What will happen when listed buildings are privately owned? And what is the point of having an Environmental and Planning Authority (MEPA)? As far as I know a “listed building” classification means it cannot be destroyed.
At the end of last month, a MEPA board, rather than rejecting the application, decided to defer the application by four weeks. This to consult with the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage and request a detailed individual report on the scheduling of these two sites.
But why did MEPA need this information? The buildings were listed. Is this a new way of sidelining classifications? Are the goal posts being moved to suit?
I cannot understand why MEPA did not reject the application outright. How many other listed buildings have been presented for speculation and have been accepted and given the go ahead by MEPA? What is the point of having listed buildings if MEPA allows applications, which include their destruction to be presented to its Board?
The PM has taken over the MEPA portfolio in order to reform it, following much discontent within the electorate on the way the authority operates.
But just stopping two listed buildings from being destroyed is not reform. There have to be radical changes within that organisation if we are to see an improvement in the way things are done at MEPA.
What is the point of having listed buildings if MEPA rides roughshod over the classification?
It is about time that our architectural heritage is given the attention it deserves. Why have classifications, if the very authority there to ensure they are respected does not?
The same is happening with Outside Development Zones (ODZs). Is the PM going to intervene every time such an occurrence takes place? Is he going to be alerted every time?
His taking over the MEPA portfolio is not the answer. He has too many other serious issues to contend with. If there is no one within the Cabinet to oversee the workings at MEPA, then the government should find someone who can from outside it. The PM can still keep an eye on things by requesting regular updates from whoever is given the responsibility.
A recent Times online comment on the need for radical change within MEPA, surprised even me, because the gist of the complaint was the very same I made over a decade ago when attending a MEPA ‘public’ hearing. I had hoped that at least that had improved.
This is what was said on the current goings-on at MEPA, DCC meetings: “What is all this about DCC conducting its business in public, when the public is regularly denied the facility of following its deliberations?
“My direct experience in objecting to PA 06269/06 which application purports to wipe out no less than 6 ‘Sliema’ type houses, at least one of which qualifies for Grade 2 listing and preservation [See The Times 5th April, Letters page] is that whenever crucial aspects are discussed, the board members go into a huddle and talk in subdued voices that are completely inaudible to the public present.
“Such attitudes on the part of DCC members most certainly do not build trust in MEPA procedures and DCC deliberations. MEPA would do well to publicly explain whether or not the resort to whispering by DCC members during meetings held in public is permissible under MEPA/DCC regulations. The long-suffering and increasingly concerned public awaits.”
One of our cartoonists can have a lot of fun with DCC members, in a huddle, whispering not to be overheard at a public meeting. It is farcical that these goings-on, and behaviour reminiscent of a Charlie Chaplin movie, still occur.
Another important element to emerge from this item is that the buildings in question have been sorely neglected and this must be true of many other listed buildings. Is it not time for an Architectural Heritage Trust to be set up? Money can be generated to maintain at least some of the buildings by turning them into hotels like the Paradors in Spain.

Dangerous items in the post
Firearms scare me so it was with quite a bit of horror that I read a recent news items on the subject. Two disassembled machine guns were discovered by Post Office officials in a parcel, which was labelled as containing puzzles, books and some clothing.
The officials are probably pretty experienced at noticing the difference in weight between games and books and machine gun parts. Although books can be heavy, they can usually tell when a parcel contains more than what is declared.
A man was found guilty of importing the machine guns without a licence and failing to pay duty on the items in October 1998.
The news item was unfortunately sparse and we were not told whether the arms were confiscated. However we were told that the parcel was intercepted ten years ago. Why did the case take so long to be heard?
Is it OK to bring in firearms if you declare it and pay licences and duties? And if you are caught importing them illegally, are you still allowed to keep the firearms?
What is the current legislation on firearms possession? And is less than €400 going to deter people from importing arms illegally? The man told the magistrate that he had not realised that he had to pay tax or that a licence was necessary. One wonders why, if the man was so naive, he sent his wife to collect the package?
However, what concerns me most is why people need to possess firearms? What does the man need two machine guns for? And disassembled means nothing because certain parts can be interchanged.
Not so long ago the police released a list of the firearms they know about and that was scary enough. The courts should be taking such cases very seriously.

Just get those tests done
The heading “No agreement yet over bus emission tests” amused me. Is the ADT now waiting for whoever is stopped to have their car tested for emissions agree to it before they proceed?
For goodness sake ADT, get on with the buses’ tests. The bus drivers will never agree they will just keep coming up with excuses. They have to abide by the law like everybody else.
Do the ADT inspectors go around showing people stopped for emission tests, their certification? I doubt it. If the inspectors are not properly qualified they should not be conducting emission tests, period.
The ADT having to prove this to the bus driver’s association does raise a few questions. We had seen a number of complaints from drivers being stopped for these tests, but I do not remember the ADT bending over backwards to get their acquiescence.
Anyway, you do not need any equipment or qualification to see which buses are emitting deadly fumes. You just have to drive behind them, especially uphill.
I hope all the recent publicity was not just a lot of hot air and that the buses will be allowed to carry on as normal. That means choking us with deadly fumes among other things.
High time for change indeed!