Residents in a street in Swieqi and the local council of the same locality are up in arms over plans for an apartment block to be built in an area largely characterised by two-storey terraced houses.

Plans submitted to the Planning Authority seek to demolish an existing terraced house on Triq il-Hemel in a residential area in Swieqi and replace it with an apartment block containing five residential units and a semi-basement garage complex.

Filed by Christopher Stanley with Christian Spiteri as the architect, the plans are situated in an area of the street which is almost all characterised by two-storey terraced houses.  The one exception on this side of the street is a four-storey apartment block with an additional receded floor situated at the end of the road.

The proposed block, which would consist of five storeys including the ground floor, is what can be described as a pencil development – a term which refers to situations where a streetscape is spoiled by a development which is much greater in height, which would have been approved owing to the fact that they do not exceed the maximum height which is allowed by Malta’s planning policies.

The Swieqi Local Council filed a scathing objection to the project, saying that if approved the development “would result in an incongruous block intruding into what is now a terrace of two storey houses.”

“The locality of Swieqi has been inundated with blocks of mediocre flats which do absolutely nothing to enrich the urban environment, and which have each potentially increased the population by a factor of 5, with no regard to the carrying capacity of our streets, parking areas, public services particularly sewerage and availability of green public open spaces. And certainly with no regard to the quality of life of Swieqi residents who have lived in these streets for all their lives,” the council said.

“The Commission should not be hoodwinked by any arguments containing the infamous term ‘precedent’. This term has absolutely no significance in Planning terms, and if the Directorate and the Commission are to respect the duty which they have which is to promote good planning, that is planning for the benefit of citizens as opposed to that of developers, then the building of a block of flats in a two-storey terrace in an over-populated town should not be allowed,” the council added.

The council also referred to a court decision on a similar application in a two-storey residential street in Santa Lucija.  In this court case in March 2023, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti revoked a planning permit which would have seen a five-storey development rise amidst a street made up of two-storey houses.

The case set a legal precedent when it comes to pencil developments, giving legal certainty that the height limitations stated in the country’s local plans do not give developers an automatic right to build up to the maximum which that height limitation permits.

Meanwhile, in a representation against the proposed development, 15 residents who live in the same street registered their “categorical objection” against the plans for a variety of reasons.

In the first instance, the residents noted that the property in question – together with their own properties – all form part of a zone which was owned by the Curia and split into 28 plots and conceded to the residents there under the specific condition that only terraced houses can be built on that land.

The residents said that in this context the proposed development is objectionable already, and the residents reserved the right to take legal action against the project should it go ahead.

Secondly, the residents cited a previous precedent from a case against the Planning Authority in July 2023 wherein the court declared that a development should not have more storeys than what is indicated in the respective Local Plan.

The residents observed that the North Harbours Local Plan stipulates that the maximum height of a development can be three storeys including a semi-basement.  This development is composed of a semi-basement level and four storeys together with another receded floor.

Thirdly, the residents argued that the development in no way respects the existing streetscape and the characteristics of the zone, which they said merit being protected. 

They cited Policy G3 in the DC 2015 Guidelines which states: “Where a uniform design prevails and it may be established, through a streetscape and photographic analysis, that a number of important streetscape parameters exist that merit inclusion within the proposed development, the emphasis will be on respecting, and possibly as far as practical reproducing, such parameters.”

The residents further noted that the project is objectionable because it would create blank party walls on both sides of the building, and run counter to the provisions of the Strategic Plan for the Environment Development (SPED).

Additionally, the residents said that as far as they are aware the applicant is not actually the owner of the site where the application is being proposed, meaning that the Public Application Form – where basic details about the project, site and applicant are filled – contains “incorrect and erroneous declarations.”

Several consultations are still to take place as part of the application process, after which the Planning Authority’s case officer will recommend whether the application should be granted or not.