I refer to the article entitled “Residents speak out against ‘illegal’ development on St Anne Square” (TMIS, 5 June) in which Christopher Vassallo laments that Mepa was contradicting its own policies when in 2006 it had given planning permission for balconies of a proposed development overlooking St Anne’s Square in Sliema to be more than 1.5 metres wide. He also points to the fact that despite the pending appeal, work on site seems to be going ahead with the recent installation of a tower crane, calling the Mepa Reform a failure.

The Authority would like to clarify and bring to the attention of your readers two issues that have been wrongly interpreted and reported namely:

The policy quoted by Mr Vassallo, which states that “A balcony shall not project more than 1.5 metres from the façade of a building where there is a front garden, except that an enclosed balcony shall not project more than 1 metre” is specifically, as the policy clearly indicates, for balconies that have a front garden built after the demarcation of the building line of the 1988 Temporary Provisions Schemes and the North Harbours Local Plan.

This policy, which Mr Vassallo is using to assert that the granting of a balcony that is 2.3 metres wide is illegal, cannot be applied to this development. This for the simple fact that at ground floor level, on this same site, there existed, prior to the 1960s scheme, a structure on the same footprint of the permitted development. Additionally, the existence of a closed balcony on the first floor, overlying the ground floor structure, is also well documented.

Therefore the official alignment is not that which was established by the 1988 Temporary Provisions Schemes or the Local Plan, but the demarcation of the building line and footprint of the commitments on site. Having said this, the approved balconies of 2.3 metres do not project beyond the façade of the new ground floor building or onto the public pavement area but overlook the developer’s own property. This is not an exception to the law but as permitted in normal circumstances.

Mr Vassallo’s claim that the restaurant, which is to be on the second and third floor, is irregular, is highly incorrect. Way back in 2002, the DCC had granted a permit for the change of use from retail stores into a catering establishment. No appeal against this permit was submitted.

Mr Vassallo also pointed to the fact that should the developer commence work on site while the case is still being appealed against will show that the Mepa reform has not changed anything and is a failure.

The legislative changes introduced on 1 January 2011, brought about by the Mepa reform, gives an appellant the chance to request the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal to suspend the execution of a development, in certain cases. This applies to any appeals that on 1 January 2011 were not already being heard by the Review Tribunal. The law allowing for the suspension of the permit while under appeal did not exist before January 2011. The developer can start work on site, even where an appeal would have been made. With this option, the developer risks having to incur major expenses to return the site to its original state should the appeal against the development is accepted.

Peter Gingell

Communications Manager

Malta Environment and Planning Authority