A recent exercise studied the stone balconies in the area of Victoria known as Mandraġġ. As a result, 42 houses with 51 balconies had their balconies scheduled as Grade 2. Only three owners appealed for a reconsideration and the Mepa board, which met on Thursday, discussed two such appeals (the third one had to be postponed because the architect could not make it) and rejected the appeals.

117, Triq ir-Repubblika

Dr Mario Scerri submitted a request for reconsideration on the basis of the following:

1. He expressed concern that although there are properties within Triq ir-Repubblika that are older than the property in question, this is the only property that has been scheduled;

2. He also stated that his property is not very old and does not have any particular architectural, historical, artistic or antiquarian value;

3. Appellant has never and will never contemplate the demolition of his property. Moreover, the façade is already protected through local plan policies and thus there is no need to schedule the whole property in order to protect the façade; and

4. The interior of the property does not have any particular value.

An internal inspection of the site was not possible since access was not provided despite a number of appointments with the owner who never showed up. However, from an external inspection a number of interventions have been noticed. These interventions are either in hand or have been recently undertaken. Moreover, it seems that these interventions are not covered by a valid planning permit and there is no pending planning application.

The following are the interventions noted during the external site inspection: Interventions on the side elevation and on the ground floor.

The directorate replied that this is not the only property as others further uphill were also scheduled.

The scheduling is being afforded irrespective of development pressure, and is only based on heritage value. The argument that the owner does not intend to demolish the property, is not a valid argument for the de-scheduling of the property. The façade is protected by Local Plan and UCA policies but these generally provide blanket protection. The scheduling provides specific protection. Despite these declarations by the owner, works without permit have been undertaken.

HPU requested the internal inspection of the property so that the heritage value could be historically ascertained. However, the inspections could not be carried out as owner never showed up.

15-17, Main Square Restaurant, Triq Sir Adrian Dingli

Perit Guido Vella submitted a request for reconsideration on the basis of the following reasons:

1. “The balcony on the façade is not made entirely of stone, and consists of an enclosed part in the centre, where only the lower part is made of local stone, since the upper part is made of timber painted brown, and glass. This part of the balcony is roofed over with coloured tegole.”;

2. “The other parts of the balcony are open, with a railing consisting of a timber frame which is painted dark brown, and with infills consisting of modern metal flat bars in a simplistic design painted black.”;

3. “The façade is very heavily cluttered with street lighting, electricity and telecommunications cables and brackets, signs, lanterns, etc.”;

4. “The façade is mostly painted in coloured paint and in several different colours, so that very little stonework is actually visible.”;

5. “The façade is quite similar to other facades in size, height, design and features, even to the extent that other commercial establishments have been opened in the adjacent buildings.”;

6. While the adjacent buildings are mostly dwellings, this building is licensed as a regular restaurant and bar, on both floors and even on the roof, and this necessitates regular modifications related to health and safety, fire fighting, security, and so on.”;

7. “The building lies practically opposite the site of the St James Church, one of the oldest churches in Gozo whose façade was recently demolished and re-erected in a contemporary design.”;

8. “Extensive building works and interventions have been permitted and were carried out in the other buildings fronting the Square.”, and

9. The “building is being singled out for scheduling for no apparent reason at all.”

Following the issue of the enforcement notice in 1999, a planning application was submitted to sanction the infringements (decoration of façade of existing building consisting of new colour scheme and renovated awnings).

The initial proposed colour scheme (magnolia, palm green and lilac) was not deemed acceptable by HAC as the proposed colour scheme does not respect the UCA characteristics and recommended that the ground floor colour scheme should replicate the colour scheme at first floor level. Eventually, fresh plans were submitted according to the recommendation by HAC.

However, the colour scheme of the ground floor is in ochre, far from the magnolia suggested before.

HPU has noticed that part of the balustraded wall on the ground floor façade has been demolished. Comparing the photos submitted in PA 5189/99 and the observation of the current state, it is clear that part of the balustraded wall was demolished in order to provide tables and chairs.

HPU officials expected to inspect the site in agreement with the owner. However, after a brief discussion with the owner about the scheduling process and reconsideration in the entrance hall, the owner did not allow internal access and did not consent to a photographic survey. Despite this, HPU noted that a number of interventions have been undertaken in some internal areas that are not compatible with a building having such architectural style.

Additionally, the following infringements on the façade were also noted: Demolished balustraded wall, change in colour of wooden apertures, use of tegole on the balcony roofing, and structure on the roof is visible from most of lower Triq ir-Repubblika.

The directorate also noted that the clutter on the façade is considered to be temporary and can be removed. Moreover, some of the clutter mentioned by the architect may not be entirely justified, are not even covered by a permit and are contrary to UCA Guidelines and Structure Plan policies UCO 4 and 8.

At the Mepa meeting, the architect claimed that the colour on the façade was due to the fumes from the cars coming up Triq ir-Repubblika. The reason for roofing over the balcony and for the robust iron balconies on the side is due to the fact that the bar also has a roof garden (which also was a disco) and so safety concerns matter.

As for St James church, Joe Magro Conti from HPU pointed out the church collapsed before Mepa was in existence, reportedly because someone was tunnelling underneath it.