I read with interest Robert Musumeci’s learned piece in last Sundays’ MaltaToday commenting upon the effect of the scheduling of Villa Bologna. We are told that Robert Musumeci is an architect with an interest in MEPA development applications.
Well, maybe I live on a different island or planet, but his claims that the scheduling of Villa Bologna ‘cannot go unnoticed by the man in the street’ strikes me as though I’ve been hit over the head with a very large hammer.
As a man in the street, so to speak, I feel as though I should go up to the MEPA HQ and buy them all a drink. I would, but for the potential of corruption charges being levelled against me.
The role of planning is to serve the best interests of the public. Robert Musumeci states that the application to develop close to Villa Bologna was submitted on the understanding that the site could be developed up to a maximum height of three floors in accordance with the Central Malta Local Plan.
He fails to mention that the area had been designated as a car park, and that local residents had for some time been lobbying to have the site requisitioned for use as a public garden.
The Local Plan may be the pre-eminent piece of guidance that covers applications, but it is exactly that: guidance. If the Local Plan were some sort of immutable law of nature where no deviation could be tolerated, then it would be inevitable that the building height would be that of the Local Plan.
It might be worth noting here that the Maltese legislation owes a lot to the English planning regime where the Local Plan is pre-eminent because it has been subject to rigorous public consultation.
In Malta however, it has now emerged that the public consultation process leading up to the 2006 Local Plans was seriously flawed and is being contested by at least three Local Councils. It has been condemned by the MEPA auditor and is the subject of an EU infringement investigation. Attard Local Council has declared that the changes to the Ta’ Fgieni site behind Villa Bologna were not made clear to its residents, while residents claim that a petition they deposited at MEPA, specifically requesting that the site remain unbuilt, was ignored.
How did the heights rules come about? When I look around Sliema and see the suggested height rules it has occurred to me that there is a discrepancy between the desirable, liveable and conservation-sensible heights, and those indicated on the Local Plan.
Although the heights established in the Local Plan are supposed to reflect the predominant height of each street, blocks of low houses are now indicated as being allowed five and six floors. It is as though the Local Plan had been drafted by developers and owner/occupiers, driven by the desire to sell out for big bucks. The rules sacrifice that which is attractive and of a pleasant scale and allow for the replacement by that which is awful.
Common sense tells one that the heights-rule is guidance because there are locations where the maximum height of the Local Plan has been exceeded.
Anyway, why get bogged down with the hard-luck stories of architects and developers. It is the rarity of beautiful modern buildings on this island that is the real cause for concern, rather than what is very probably a noteworthy planning decision.
Maybe the Villa Bologna effect is a sign of things to come, in which case the public have good reason to celebrate.

Steve McGlynn
Sliema

PRINT THIS ARTICLE