Facade alterations in High Street, Hamrun approved

The Commission further observed that the proposed designs would not maintain the visual integrity of the area, hence not complying with Structure Plan policy BEN 2. In conclusion, the Commission underlined that Structure Plan policy UCO7 was being infringed since the proposal entailed a replacement building which is not in harmony with its surroundings. 

The Tribunal felt that a compromise could have been reached between the applicant and the Authority

On his part, the applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting inter alia that the proposed interventions were minimal, consisting of the demolition of a masonry balcony (which is not symmetrical with an overlying timber balcony which was to be preserved) and the removal of a pillar that separates two existing entrances at ground floor level, with a view to widen the shop front.

But in any case, the applicant maintained that High Street, Hamrun is characterised by several shopping outlets which were modified without any attempt to retain original architectural features in recent years. The applicant in fact referred to a 2009 permit pertaining to a nearby site, where a three storey facade featuring nine timber balconies was demolished and replaced by a modern building. But even so, the applicant maintained that, if anything, his proposal constitutes “a vast improvement on the existing facade.” 

In reaction, the MEPA case officer  reiterated that “solid-to-void ratio” in consequence of the proposed removal of the pillar separating the two entrances  at ground floor level is not considered adequate within Urban Conservation Areas, adding that St Joseph High Road is “still characterised by a larger number of buildings and streetscape stretches which are worth preserving. Indeed, the case officer concluded that the proposal “presents a more drastic outlook when considered with the rest of the street which is still characterised by a considerable amount of vernacular character.’’

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the facade in question was already subject to various past structural interventions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal felt that a compromise could have been reached between the applicant and the Authority during the application process.

The Tribunal held that the opening at ground floor level (as proposed) is visually acceptable as long as the opening and first floor overlying apertures are symmetrically aligned. Against this background, the Tribunal ordered the MEPA to issue the permit subject to the amendments.

[email protected]