Permit for Valletta timber roof structure approved
A development application “to sanction the removal of a corrugated iron structure and its replacement by a removable wooden roof structure” pertaining to a restaurant located in Merchants Street, Valletta was initially turned down by MEPA’s Environment and Planning Commission after it was held that the proposed development runs counter to Structure Plan policy UCO10 and Grand Harbour Local Plan policy GV 15 in that it does not respect the topography of the area and detracts from the traditional urban skyline.
23 October 2014, 8:00am
Robert Musumeci
Robert Musumeci
2 min read
Additionally, it was argued that the proposed development would detract from the overall objectives of the Structure Plan for the preservation and enhancement of buildings, spaces and townscapes within Urban Conservation Areas and so does not comply with Structure Plan policy UCO6.
The Commission also made reference to policy Circulars 2/96 and 2/98 (incidentally, these policies were effectively repealed on the date of the decision), stating that the site subject to this application featured a number of illegalities consisting inter alia of air conditioning units and surrounding timber screens overlying the said roof structures and which applicant made no attempt to sanction or remove.
The timber structure, besides not being of an excessive scale and height, is adequately screened by surrounding planters
The Commission went on to conclude that “the proposal was not endorsed in terms of sanitary laws and regulations since it could not be properly assessed in view of unknown use of room being sanctioned and lack of information relating to the underlying levels.’’
As expected, the applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, attesting by way of photo evidence that the mentioned illegalities were in the meantime removed.
Referring to the skyline, the applicant argued that when viewed from Senglea and Vittoriosa, one can safely deduce that the structures under consideration do not “disturb” the topography or urban skyline in any way. More so, the applicant made express reference to a number of Valletta planning applications, including a permit relative to the Bologna Restuarant and another application in relation to the Casa Rocca Piccola site, whereby the Authority authorised construction at roof level in both instances.
On its part, the Authority stood firm, stating that the reasons for refusal included sanitary considerations and the Tribunal was therefore legally bound to dismiss the appeal forthwith since it has no jurisdiction to decide on sanitary matters (reference was made to the seminal decision in the names “Pater Holding Co. Ltd. vs Il-Kummissjoni ghall-Kontroll ta’ l-Izvilupp” in support of this argument).
In its assessment, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had in fact addressed all pending sanitary considerations by way of fresh drawings showing an open courtyard. With regard to the remaining reasons for refusal, the Tribunal observed that following a site inspection, it was in a position to conclude that the timber structure (subject to the application under appeal) is easily demountable. But even so, the Tribunal assessed that the timber structure, besides being of an appropriate height, is adequately screened by surrounding planters. Against this background, the Tribunal ordered the MEPA to issue the permit.
Robert Musumeci is an architect who also pursued a degree in law
Dr Robert Musumeci is a warranted advocate and a perit. He also holds a Masters Degree in ...
