While last week's article exposed the sorry state of our national built heritage like fortifications, privately-owned cultural heritage, is, if anything in a much more at risk.

Sadly, the fact that our Island has no natural resources to speak of had a very direct effect on Malta's heritage, as therefore land and property became its most valuable and traded commodity. Property development has always been seen as a great investment and a relatively easy money-spinner for those involved. However, since the industry generates a whole vortex of economic activity like plumbers, electricians, tilers, carpenters etc. every successive Government has viewed property-development as its life-line in times of economic crisis.

This was seen most memorably in Mintoff's building schemes which were created to bolster the economy in the darkest days of the 70's recession. However we never really outgrew that mentality, and with tourism flagging and industrial investment in a slump, the construction industry is seen as one of the main engines to fuel economic growth. Its importance is, in fact, blown out of proportion as studies have shown that the construction industry only renders the country a little more than agriculture, however it does create very powerful pressure groups.

As land becomes scarcer, it is only natural that the developers are now turning to the supposedly protected 'Out of Development Zones' (ODZs) and village core Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs). This results in the loss of more of our heritage through loss of countryside and of traditional old buildings which are unfortunately replaced by others which are not in keeping with the context and which are usually totally lacking in the Maltese idiom of architecture. Since Government is keen to back any sector that creates jobs even in the short term, and receives substantial backing from developers, it has shown no inclination to put the brakes on this situation of rampant, unsustainable development. So much so that Mepa sources tell me that they have never seen the pressure to process so many building applications as at present, with developers desperate to secure their permits before the next national elections.

Time and time again we have heard that Malta is the most built-over country in Europe while 20% of our buildings lie unoccupied, which translates to a whopping 23,000 units. What are we thinking of? This is madness! Where are the far-sighted policies to identify abandoned buildings and earmark them for conversion. Where are the grants that would help young couples take on such conversions? Government has given such subsidies in the past in Mintoff's infamous 'land for free' building schemes, so why not give assistance in a more illuminated fashion and make full use of our building stock before cannibalising more heritage and countryside.

Part of this complicated scenario is of course the thorny issue of rent reform. Pre-war rent regulations are the one single most damaging factor contributing to the deterioration of privately-owned buildings in Valletta and the Three Cities. Landlords of properties held at risible rates have no real revenues or inclination to pay for repairs. Moreover they actually have every incentive to allow the property to deteriorate in the hope that their tenants will move out.

Gradual freeing up of the rent laws needs to start immediately, along with adequate provision that these buildings are not demolished. Furthermore as system of maintenance grants for owners of scheduled properties is a must. How can the owners of massive Balluta Buildings be expected to maintain such a magnificent structure single-handedly? It is not enough for us to say that these homes should not be demolished while doing nothing to help the owners preserve them. If the Maltese exchequer is not yet in a position to offer maintenance funding, then such works should immediately be made tax-deductible.

Without such assistance, owners have every excuse to neglect such buildings, often in the hope that they will eventually collapse. The Cultural Heritage Act does include a provision for steps to be taken to ensure that listed buildings are maintained, so what are we waiting for to apply it to the many cases crying out for such action?

Tax deductions for those who donate to our cultural heritage would obviously greatly boost NGOs' fund-raising potential but though this has been promised for years, it has never materialised.

Mepa's role in protecting our urban and rural landscape is less than glorious as the efforts of its many honest and hardworking employees are constantly undermined by a number of factors. Foremost amongst these are its convoluted regulations and Byzantine structure which are so hard for an outsider to navigate. While one understands that its regulations have to allow for some flexibility, the system is full of loopholes which which developers have exploited, ruining the character of our village cores and countryside.

Mepa's routine sanctioning of illegal works which regularly violate sites of heritage value is also a great source of encouragement for others to violate further.

Even though the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage has passed on some recommendations for scheduling of property, Mepa has not protected a single property by scheduling for the last four years. The reason for this is that the system had been left in such a shambles that it was not even known where many of the properties were or how many of the scheduled properties were still standing! The indications are that we have already lost 30% of our listed buildings. The last few years have been spent researching and updating the inventory and coping with court cases which sap the department's time and energy, fending off property owners who want their houses de-scheduled so that they can demolish and re-develop their properties.

Given such a scenario, why has this department not been allotted more staff to cope with the volume of work. One shudders to think of how many schedule-quality buildings have gone down while the department rightly sorts itself out. Although our present Government boasts that it has provided a more transparent system by taking matters out of the minister's hands and entrusting them to an independent body, allocation of human resources is ultimately the minister's decision. Therefore there is no denying that the constant bleeding of our heritage boils down to lack of political will to save it.

A typical case is that of the earliest house in Sliema, traced in maps dated 1728 and later. This is an example of a building which would have been listed if the system were up and running. Instead Mepa has ignored the recommendations of its Integrated Heritage Board and the Superintendent of Cultural heritage that it should be preserved, and given the green light for demolition, paving the way for the rest of this historic street to go down. A heresy if ever there was one. What is the point of having boards like Mepa's Integrated Heritage Management if their recommendations are ignored? We might as well send them home and save a few salaries.

As of the time of going to print, the developer of this house had actually started demolishing the house within the operative period of appeal. If it were not for the speedy action of those who alerted Mepa enforcement officers, the house would have gone down and all the developer would have had to face would be financial compensation in case of losing the appeal. What sum can ever compensate for the loss of a house going back three centuries?

Even where the buildings are actually on the list of protected buildings, Mepa boards still feel free to violate the Heritage Law by approving their demolition. In the infamous Piazzetta case, Gasan Holdings were rewarded by Mepa for illegally demolishing most of a scheduled building by being given a permission to demolish its magnificent façade "as long as it was rebuilt elsewhere". This of course violates any concept of a building's value being in its proper setting, besides which the ruling was so vague that the façade could have been rebuilt anywhere, even in a backyard. This outrageous judgement led to the ludicrous situation that one Mepa board took another Mepa board to court and the verdict was overturned on a technicality. To date the developer is still applying to demolish the listed façade and may well win.

Which brings us to another fallacy which has been repeated so many times that it is finally believed. Property owners and developers claim vociferously that scheduling buildings for preservation is a grave injustice to property owners as it prevents them from earning money from development like others have done. What they are not saying, however, is that demolition is not the only way of earning money from property. Real estate agents confirm that there is a glut of apartments on the market; in Sliema alone there are currently thousands of apartments both for sale and to let, and in fact prices are dropping in both sectors. On the other hand houses are very sought-after but rarely come on the market, therefore house-owners stand to make a handsome sum by selling their properties as houses of character instead of selling them to be demolished. It is the developers who stand to make a huge profit by demolishing them and re-building as flats, therefore the destruction of Malta's unique character is clearly speculation-driven.

This is not only true of contractors but also of developers who win permits in ODZs and ruin the character of unique bays like Balluta, under the guise of encouragement for top-end tourism projects. Sure enough, there is now the tendency that once built, these projects are being converted into yet more private apartment blocks, which would not have been granted a permit had they been applied for that way originally. Needless to say, these conversions are sanctioned without a whimper of objection from Government quarters.

As heritage is that which defines us as a race and as individuals, to a large segment of the population the countryside is an even more important part of our heritage than our monuments. Outside the few towns, most villagers have their 'bicca raba' which is not used so much for commercial or subsistence farming, but as an excuse to enjoy the fresh air and peace that only the countryside can give. As one of the Ta' Cenc farmers put it, he would often go to his field just to savour the times he spent there with his father and grandfather.

So we don't have to dress up as Zepp u Grezz in order to still be in touch with our traditional lifestyle. Still we blindly insist on selling off our birthright for something which is totally unsuited to Malta, instead of investing that money in maintaining our best assets. To have large swathes of what little countryside is left around the Bahrija-Mtahleb and Marsascala areas closed off to the public by hunters and trappers taking over land illegally is an outrage. Prehistoric sites, iron-age settlements and parts of the Victoria Lines are inaccessible as cowboys rule unchallenged by the authorities.

For the past few years we have been told to have patience while the Government focussed all its energy and resources on achieving entry into the EU. A good section of the population voted in favour of the EU precisely to put a stop to the violations we have had to live with for so long. Although the EU hurdle is now well behind us, we still see no effort to start improving the situation; all we see is an ongoing free-for-all as contractors and hunters carve up our once-fair land. The level of discontent is palpable, to everyone except Government.

Astrid Vella