Interview | Sunday, 22 February 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Cracks in the edifice

Fresh from yet another victory of civil society, ASTRID VELLA says her lobby is not a contrarian movement against planning and development

In 2006, Astrid Vella emerged from anonymity to campaign against the demolition of one of Sliema’s oldest houses. Three years later, she formed Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA), a civil society movement which mobilised the first mass protests against planning mayhem, and which forced the revocation of the permit for a residential complex at Ramla Bay in Gozo.
Her most recent campaign to stop the extension of the St John’s Co-Cathedral museum triggered a backbench revolt involving at least three government MPs, and exploited by the Opposition in a motion calling on the government to withdraw its support for the project proposed by the Cathedral’s foundation.
Without any doubt FAA has been dragged into the political fray. Can Astrid Vella, the self-avowed “small woman from Sliema”, take the inevitable flak from the conflict with the powers that be?
“We would rather not be involved in politics since we are strictly a non-political NGO,” Vella says, despite her organisation representing a not insignificant lobby of voters who are irked by government authorities and decisions on dubious planning choices.
But Vella does know when to pull the brakes. Despite her very high profile before the 2008 election, she was remarkably silent during the campaign in which the PN did its utmost to project itself as a “green” party. She even refused an invitation on Dissett dealing with the environmental proposals of the four parties. Strange time for a break.
“FAA is a non-political group and in spite of the pressure we were under at the time we did not want to be seen as influencing matters one way or the other,” she says.
She calls government’s withdrawal from the St John’s project a “U-turn which shows courage and maturity.”
But wasn’t the Prime Minister’s decision dictated more by a backbench revolt in parliament, than by pressure exerted by FAA?
“We feel various different sectors of Maltese public and political life contributed to this very good outcome, including the Archbishop and the Cathedral monsinjuri.”
Vella is quick to point out that FAA is no “one woman band” even though in the public eye FAA is personified by Astrid Vella.
“FAA is registered with the Voluntary Organisations Commissioner with all our papers in order including our accounts. We have an elected committee and 570 members which is a good number considering that we have only been in existence for 3 years.”
A Sunday Times editorial criticized FAA for a “new-found tendency to seemingly object to any project being proposed.”
“This accusation has been levelled against us ever since FAA was set up but it is far from the truth,” she says, listing a number of projects to which FAA did not object, such as the Metropolis project in Gzira and the Rue D’Argens Savoy gardens project which according to FAA envision the regeneration of their areas. Neither did FAA object to the major structural changes to be carried out on the Art Nouveau house facing the Independence Gardens in spite of the fact that it is a scheduled building, because she says the restoration will ensure its survival as a functioning building after years of abandonment.
“The accusation that we object to everything is just an attempt to inhibit us from speaking on important issues.”
FAA’s yardstick when assessing projects is their impact on rural or architectural heritage, sustainability and the quality of life of local communities.
Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta’s permanent representative in the EU and a member on the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation board expressed his regret that “decisions are not allowed to be taken by professionals,” as the project was stopped before an Environment Impact Study was conducted. Would it have been more sensible to wait for the completion of these studies, to determine the impact of the project in a scientific way, before stopping it?
Vella states that the undertaking of an EIA is MEPA’s decision and not a developers’ automatic right. “If it were, we would even see unthinkable ventures like a mega-project on Comino going to an EIA stage.”
Vella insists that she is not exaggerating, pointing out that the architect behind the Cathedral project has applied for apartment blocks nine storeys high at Hondoq ir-Rummien in Gozo.
But if the developer is willing to pay for an EIA, why stop him? “EIAs are presently a developers’ delight, allowing them to legitimise even unacceptable projects. The fact that the consultants are selected and paid by the developers prejudices their impartiality. Can you imagine our Courts dropping the system of court-appointed experts and allowing the parties in a case to appoint their own chosen experts? Moreover it is not just the developer who incurs an expense but also the taxpayer who pays thousands of euros for weeks of assessment of each EIA.”
She also cites a precedent to prove her point: a project for an underground car park beneath the Mosta church which was not allowed to undertake an EIA because of a threat to the church’s foundations. “Given that this project for a church, which is more recent and less sensitive than St John’s, was blocked, one cannot but ask if pressure was put upon MEPA to allow an EIA for the Co-Cathedral”
But what expertise does FAA have to claim that the Co-Cathedral Museum’s extension would have harmed the foundations the cathedral? Would it not have been better to leave this task to geological studies which were to take place in the EIA process?
“We never say anything of our own accord. Our first step is always to check reports and official studies. Who can ignore a letter by the MEPA directorate stating that no matter what precautions are taken, nothing can guarantee that the stability of St John’s foundations would not be affected?”
She also refers to reports by MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Committee and Integrated Heritage Management Unit echoing those serious concerns. FAA also consulted architects and civil engineers who insisted that any EIA should have been preceded by a geological study.
Vella maintains that EIAs are not infallible. “We have seen many EIAs which turned out to be flawed,” she says, mentioning the “highly questionable” site selection study for the Sant Antnin recycling plant, in which the three sites proposed were not large enough to accommodate the plant, and so could have never been selected in the first place.
Another EIA which Vella considers to be flawed is the one on Fort Cambridge, which did not include a social impact assessment despite being included in the terms of reference for the project. “The EIA included assurances that the dust and vibrations would not constitute a serious problem. Yet residents spent months choked in dust and suffered cracks in their homes, not to mention the collapse of a nearby protected sea-cave. Are these the risks we were prepared to take at St John’s?”
Astrid Vella makes it clear that she is not saying that EIAs should be dropped or paid for by taxpayers. Rather she insists that EIAs should be strengthened by the setting up of an EIA consultant register which would exclude consultants who submit studies which are not objective and do not reflect the true situation.
“The debate is now being made to focus only on the EIA issue, forgetting all the other objections raised, namely the danger to the underground passages, the unavoidable impact of years of noise, dust and heavy vehicle traffic on the residents and shops of Valletta, the project’s unsustainability and, above all, the unsuitability of turning the Great Siege cemetery into a souvenir shop, a sacrilege which cannot be assessed in any EIA. There was also the general consensus that €16 million could be spread over more urgent projects as is now to be done.”
Now that the project has been stopped, the Foundation still faces the problem of where to house the tapestries.
One of the options proposed by FAA on its website was “hanging the Flemish tapestries in the Great Hall of the Sacra Infermeria, which not only offers the right proportions and the right Baroque setting, but would start to regenerate lower Valletta.”
Wouldn’t this have deprived the tapestries of their historical location and thus deprived St John’s Co-Cathedral of its prestige?
“We do not advocate moving the tapestries out of the St John’s Complex to a palazzo. It is the silver collections, church vestments, choral books and restoration workshops that could be moved out to a palazzo to make more space for the tapestries within St Johns.”
In fact one of the alternatives proposed by FAA in its website was for the foundation to acquire one of the dilapidated buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Co-Cathedral which could be restored to exhibit the religious artefacts, liberating space for the tapestries within the Co-Cathedral museum.
She quotes MEPA experts and past curators who highlighted the fact that there is still much unused space within St John’s, such as the two corridors running parallel to Republic Street which could be utilized while ensuring the preservation of the tapestries in an adequate environment.
“FAA backed the Foundation in its quest for an expansion of the museum from the very start when we had called on the Church and State authorities to help it find suitable locations to better house their exhibits. The Foundation complains that tourists are spending too much time in the Cathedral, but there is no need to wait for an underground extension in order to re-route the tourists within the nave.”
The petition to the Prime Minister carried on the FAA website contains less than 1,500 names, some of which are duplicates. Does this not show a lack of seriousness?
“The list referred to is our old online petition about the St John’s Co-Cathedral project, and not the Open Letter which was presented to the Prime Minister and all the Members of Parliament. The figure of over 1,500 names was not final but the number of signatures collected in only one week, which are fully documented and in the hands of the Members of Parliament.”
Another hot issue on which FAA has taken a leading role is the siting of parliament on the Opera House site. But whilst objecting to the building of a House of Parliament on the Opera House site, FAA does not have a stand on whether it should be rebuilt exactly as it was before World War II.
“We maintain that Malta stands to gain from having a national theatre and this seems to be the only location left for such a building.”
Mrs Vella considers it to be premature to comment on the architectural merits of the project. “In principle we are not averse to the use of modern architecture. We would simply like it to harmonise and complement the existing architecture.”
She is also confident that a compromise can be found to accommodate both the need for a new parliament and a national theatre: “Renzo Piano’s proposal to use two sites, Freedom square as well as the Opera House site would allow for the construction of both the parliament and a national theatre.”
Is not FAA going beyond its brief as a heritage organisation by speaking on the use of the proposed building? “The old theatre is a very strong part of Malta’s heritage; the public has been promised the rebuilding of this heritage icon before every election for the last fifty years or so and has a right to see this promise honoured.”
So why not rebuild it as an opera house as it was before the war?
“An opera house would be limited in scope. Malta badly needs a national theatre for large scale musicals, dramas, ballet, opera and even modern concerts which cannot be presently accommodated at the Manoel Theatre or the Conference Centre.” She also notes that for the first time ever Malta has a full-scale philharmonic orchestra but it lacks an adequate performance space.
Astrid Vella has been one of the leading critics of MEPA. For a time she was even “boycotted” by former MEPA chairman Andrew Calleja. Has MEPA improved under Austin Walker’s tenure?
“We have seen a major improvement. There is a huge change in attitude.”
But Astrid Vella admits that even the new Chairman is hampered by the slow pace of the promised MEPA reform. “We are not in favour of a hasty MEPA reform which does not address the issues properly, but certain measures could have been taken immediately so that they are reflected in decisions which are being taken right now.”
Will FAA retain its political neutrality in future elections?
“I cannot speak for the future as I may not even have a leading role in the committee then. But we do not regret our non-partisan decision as regards the last election.”

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.