Last week your newspaper published a letter from MEPA chiding the Auditor for his “several inaccuracies’ on the case of 75 Windsor Terrace. All these inaccuracies boil down to the fact that the Auditor had said that six floors were granted, when he should have said four floors, a penthouse and a 10-filata semi-basement. All of one filata (stone course) short of six floors, wow!
On the subject of inaccuracies, could Ms DeBono enlighten us as to what are the commitments the DCC board quoted to justify the granting of this permit, because with the exception of one sorry block that defaces the area, according to MEPA’s map server, all applications for this part of Windsor Terrace have been consistently refused, one as recently as a couple of months ago. In fact, the Case Officer justified his recommendation of refusal by referring to other similar cases which were refused all the way to the Appeals Board, so why was this one approved when the rest were not?
The Heritage Advisory Committee even goes as far as to say that it is “of the opinion that internal demolition should not take place. The committee is of the opinion that no changes to the façade should be made”. Of course both of these recommendations have been swept aside by the DCC’s approval of the excavation of a basement garage and a garage door on the façade, which contravenes Urban Conservation Area guidelines.
The real howler however is Ms DeBono’s claim that at time of the decision on 18 July 2006 “both the Temporary Provision Schemes and the Draft Local Plan did not impose a height limitation on the area”. As Ms DeBono knows perfectly well, the Temporary Provisions Schemes never impose height limitations. How can she say that the Draft Local Plan, (available at www.ambjentahjar.org) did not impose a height limitation on the area, when it clearly shows a height limitation of two floors?
As for Ms Debono’s statement “The DCC was not in a position to predict when the Local Plans were to come into force”, not knowing when the final plan is going to be ratified is no excuse as MEPA Policy Ben 4, which I am confident that members of the DCC are familiar with, clearly states: “During the interim period between the commencement date of the Structure Plan and the adoption of any particular Local Plan, permission will not normally be given unless the Planning Authority is satisfied that such permission would be unlikely to compromise the objectives of the review forming part of Local Plan preparation.”
In fact, the review of the Sliema Local Plan confirmed that the height limitation for the Windsor Terrace site was to remain unchanged at two floors. This was concluded in May 2006. Therefore it was already known within MEPA when this permit was decided in July.
I cannot understand how MEPA can discredit itself even further, issuing one intentional inaccuracy after another in another futile attempt to defend what should instead be roundly condemned as yet another abusive decision contributing to the ongoing destruction of our heritage.