A similar development application had been turned down by the board a few years ago. The restaurant itself has no architectural value; however its development could hide a number of buildings that have been scheduled for their historic value, including a neo-gothic church and Villa Palm Lodge.

Board members were shown a visual of how the proposed development would look through a superimposition of the proposed building over a picture of the area as it is now. The apartment block was shown to cover the surrounding historic structures completely. However the developer’s architect Philip Mifsud put forward a complaint, saying that he had no say in the photomontage and claiming that it was incorrect.

A number of board members voiced their concern that the new proposals could overdevelop the area, pointing out that the restaurant as it is had already overdeveloped the site by double the quota awarded by the PB3579 permit issued in 1982.

Mr Mifsud argued that the developer was very flexible and was open to discussions with Mepa. He even suggested that the development could incorporate public access to the chapel, which was now limited. He said that this development was an opportunity to improve the area’s aesthetics and not the other way round.

In this connection, some board members agreed that there should be an attempt to replace the existing restaurant with a building that made more aesthetic sense. It was decided to allow Mr Mifsud to procure his own visuals.