I refer to the letter of 16 November, in which the owners of 10, Dingli Street object to others commenting on a property they have never stepped inside, saying “the interior of the house has nothing to do with this style of construction (Art Nouveau).”
Since our environment group, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA), commented about this house publicly, I should explain that our opinions were far from amateur reports, as alleged. They were based on the following report made by not one, but two of MEPA’s heritage bodies: its Integrated Heritage Management Team, and the independent experts of the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) who include restoration architects.
“During the site inspection, it was revealed that the high architectural merits are not only limited to the façade or to the rooms and corridors abutting the façade but to the whole building. The building still retains all its original features way down to the original internal and external doors and windows and associated ironmongery. The layout is also very typical of the period with the masonry staircase and wrought iron handrail dominating the central area of the building.
“These two houses are both very fine examples of Art Nouveau architecture. Both buildings merit to be retained and in particular house number 10 should be preserved in its entirety. Furthermore it was indicated that if one had to value these buildings, both would merit at least Grade 2 protection, and house Number 10 certainly merits Grade 2+ (between Grade 1 and Grade 2).
“While the Integrated Management Team concluded that both houses should be retained, preserved and restored,” the HAC added. “This house is one of the most prestigious in Dingli Street as well as in the whole of Sliema. Its beauty strikes one in its entirety as well as in its every detail.”
This contrasts starkly with the owners claims that “we can forcefully say that there is nothing inside to say that this house was built in the ‘Art Nouveau’ period”.
Therefore the objections against the application to gut the house were not “wholly unfounded” as has been claimed.
Grade 1 scheduling is normally retained for national monuments, so it was the official heritage boards who attributed a standard almost equivalent to a national monument (no one ever claimed equivalence): heritage professionals who are hardly in the habit of making statements that are “absurd, almost hilarious and can only serve to fool the public”, as alleged by Ms Grima and Mr Sultana.
The writers should inform themselves that Local Plan height limitations are meant to reflect the predominant height of each block, not an entire street. This block contains nine houses, only one of which rises above three floors. That is why it is very hard to understand why the block’s height limitation was raised from two storeys in the old Local Plan to five storeys in the 2006 Sliema Local Plan. It is even stranger how the building categories previously listed the block as being of “Specific Conservation Importance” and yet in the 2006 Local Plan, the neighbouring houses are listed as Category B+ and yet no. 10, the finest house, suspiciously drops by two grades to Category C.
It is these serious irregularities that have led FAA to state that the Sliema Local Plan was changed to suit developments in the pipeline.
The owners claim that “there is absolutely no streetscape to save anymore”, however the attached photo shows a rare row of six untouched houses designed by the architect Gustavo Vincenti, blending into a beautiful streetscape.
Far from being enhanced as the owners claim, the proposed six-storey building protruding from Nos. 9 and 10 would completely destroy not only the harmonious proportions of the individual houses, but the whole streetscape. If the owners of this house feel that this is acceptable, we beg to differ, especially in the light of the fact that around 5,000 of Malta’s over 70,000 empty building units are located in Sliema and St Julian’s.
Like many others, the owners of 10 Dingli Street have given the impression that demolition is the only option, choosing to ignore the fact that intact townhouses are in such great demand that they are often snapped up before they are advertised.
The reference to “all the essential freedoms which normally go with property ownership” is not correct. MEPA, which regulates in the interest of the community, imposes extensive controls on property owners, from height limitations right down to the colour of painting of facades and quality of apertures, therefore owners freedom to do what they like with their property is an illusion.
On the other hand FAA has fought for and recently won financial assistance for owners to restore their heritage properties, which is a major step in the right direction.
I would suggest that before descending to petty remarks about lack of professionalism, the authors do their homework and get their facts right.

Astrid Vella,
Coordinator, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar

PRINT THIS ARTICLE