Two applications which sought to develop two Grade 2 scheduled houses in Msida, which were meant to be discussed by the Planning authority Board on Thursday, have been withdrawn by the applicant.
The two applications sought to construct apartments above two adjacent properties, on 9, and 11, Tower Road, Msida. One of the original applications sought the construction of a garage (2 un-obstructed car spaces), one two-bedroom unit flat per floor for four floors, and a penthouse in each building. The other application was similar, with a maisonette instead of a garage proposed. A few objections had been filed, including by Carmel Cacopardo – on behalf of some residents. They argued, among other things, that the “demolition and substitution with the proposed block of flats will ruin the streetscape.” He also argued that there exists a large cistern for the collection of rainwater beneath the property.
The applications had gone before the Planning Commission back in July 2016 and were refused, however a dispute arose during the debate over the applications.
The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had filed a letter stating that the property proposed for development is an early twentieth century house. “The house has historical and architectural value on its own merit and also contributes to the aesthetic and architectural value of the streetscape.” They recommended that the houses be scheduled, and objected to the application, however the letter was received after the legal timeframe whereby such filings can be made.
According to the applicant’s application before the Tribunal, the Chairperson of the Planning Commission had wanted to suspend the decision in order for the case to be discussed before the Executive Council, given that the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage filed a letter objecting to the development, however the applicant argued that there was no ground for consultation regarding the letter, as it was filed after the allocated legal time frame for such filings, and thus should be ignored, instead registered as a no objection.
The applicant argued that the Commission Chairperson had also passed some remarks which were prejudicial to the applicant.
The Commission took a decision denying the applications, however the applicant argued that he was unfairly treated, and that the Commission only sought policies to back their refusal after a vote had been taken.
The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal decided to send the case back to the stage prior to the Commission’s decision, given that the Commission had not followed policy at the time, whereby they were meant to take an indicative vote, and formalise an official vote in a different sitting if they planned to go against the recommendations of the Planning Directorate, which they had.
Since then, the buildings had been scheduled as Grade 2. The Planning Directorate said, in the Case Officer’s Report: “Following the Planning Board hearing, revised drawings were submitted by the architect with the following changes: Replacement of the proposed ground floor garage with a maisonette to minimise interventions on the existing facade; Retention of the existing facade and adoption of similar features on the proposed vertical facade extension.”
“Notwithstanding, the revised proposal seeks to compromise the scheduling constraint of the site and therefore cannot be favourably considered in principle.”
“The proposed internal demolition and re-development of a Grade 2 scheduled house into an apartment block seeks to compromise the architectural value of the building and immediate streetscape, and is objected to by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage. Therefore, the proposal runs counter to Thematic Objective 8 and Urban Objective 2 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development, which seek to preserve buildings of cultural heritage.”
While the two cases were set to be discussed on Thursday, both applications have now been withdrawn by the applicant.