The case of the demolition of part of the Qormi Knights’ period armoury has registered new developments. Contrary to what has been said, the demolished structures have been shown to be an integral part of the Armoury complex by the existence of doors leading from the demolished rooms into the main building. In keeping with the dating of the main building by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, the style of these doorways conforms to that of the late 1500s.
On the other hand, examination of the files at MEPA have shown very grave shortcomings in the processing of the permits, from beginning to end. Four applications were made on this site between 2004 and 2007, some running concurrently and confusing the issue. Most of these fail to declare the site to be in the Urban Conservation Area (UCA). Even more seriously, in each application the architects failed to fill the section declaring the site to be a scheduled building Grade 3 adjacent to a Grade 1 structure, as they are obliged to do by Circular to Architects 8/02.
Further infringements include non-submission of plans of the existing structures and street elevations which are obligatory within the UCA, but most seriously, there is no mention of essential architectural features such as existing arches, kileb, xorok and alkovi which have since been destroyed. Although it is obligatory to show these on the plans and sections, these have been completely omitted. This, FAA maintains, is serious enough to warrant the revocation of the permit on the grounds of fraud as interpreted in Article 39A: “fraud” means the submission to the Authority of any information, declaration or plan on the basis of which the Authority has approved a development permission, where such information, declaration or plan is false, misleading or incorrect, irrespective of whether such deceit is the result of a wilful or negligent act.
Other shortcomings in this case include an application showing the wrong site and the applicants repeatedly declaring themselves to be owners of the site and subsequently producing evidence of the real owners after three years of processing. The regulations which have been violated with the granting of these permits include UCA Policies 2, 6, 8, 10, BEN 1, 2, 19, TRA 4, guidelines on the development of gardens and backyards in UCAs as well as provisions to protect existing trees, and rubble walls in the Armoury garden which were protected by LN 160/97.
FAA cannot understand how these regulations were repeatedly ignored by both the DCC as well as the Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC), in spite of the MEPA Directorate’s repeated recommendations to refuse the permit. The MEPA Heritage Management Unit went so far as to urge a revision of the HAC report saying “HAC may wish to comment whether their recommendation is still valid especially when considering that the property can significantly influence the contextual integrity of the adjacent Grade 1 property.”
The heritage official also noted that the “Arched hall to be protected has already suffered damage – destruction of the carved lintel above main door. One of the stone arches has been replaced by iron beam internally. Plans indicate that existing doors are to be moved. Forfeiture of guarantee is recommended.”
In view of the fact that the building was “of vernacular, architectural, cultural and historical relevance” the Heritage officer called for it to be protected by an Emergency Conservation Order. Instead the DCC proceeded to approve its demolition.
FAA cannot comprehend how the HAC and DCC did not even question why the most valuable structure in the area was removed from UCA protection in the 2006 revision of the Local Plans and approved such a destruction of our architectural heritage. Did the fact that the architect applying for the demolition sat on both the DCC and the HAC at the time of submission of the applications have anything to do with this?
In view of the facts revealed in the MEPA files an immediate investigation by the Mepa Auditor is called for.
