Paceville open terrace found not to be a public open space

A planning application contemplating the conversion of an ‘open terrace’ situated in Triq Santu Wistin, Paceville to a restaurant was turned down by the Planning Commission on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development ran counter to the provisions of the Local Plan, which ‘intended this area to remain open’;

2. The proposal was in breach of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED) Urban Objective 3 which aims to protect and enhance the character and amenity of urban areas;

3. The proposed development runs counter to the provisions of policy G39 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015 which specifies that only one sign may be mounted on a shop. In this case, a number of signs were mounted along the periphery of the terrace, resulting in ‘visual clutter’ which was affecting negatively the external appearance of the building and consequently its setting;

4. The site was not ‘fully accessible’ for users and visitors and thus ran counter to policy P11 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015 and to Urban Objective 4 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development, which aim for the integration of the requirements of people with special needs in the design of buildings and facilities. Concern to this end was raised by the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) in respect of a ramp which provided access to the terrace.

In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal with the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal insisting that the permission should have been issued due to the following reasons:

1. Contrary to what the Authority had alleged, the site in question does not fall within an area designated as Public Open Space but an area which the Local Plan had designated as a Secondary Town Centre where commercial activities and active frontages are allowed;

2. As a fact, various permissions to undertake commercial activity on this terrace were issued in the past. For example, the Authority had, way back in 2002, issued a permit to place a hot-dog barrow on this terrace.

In its reply, the Authority stood firm with its decision, reiterating that applicant’s site formed part of an area that was originally designated as a Green Area in the Temporary Provision Schemes of 1988. According to the case officer, the proposal was thus objectionable on policy grounds since the proposed interventions would detract from ‘the intentions of the Local Plan designations to keep the area open.’

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) had retracted its previous objections with regard to the access ramp since ‘due to the limited space and encroachment to the public stairs/pavement’. Furthermore, the Tribunal maintained that the terrace in question was located within the Secondary Town Centre, adding that there was nothing to suggest that the Local Plan had designated the terrace as a Public Open Space (as previously alleged by the Authority). Against this background, the Tribunal accepted appellant’s arguments and ordered the Authority to issue the permission subject to the visual clutter along the site periphery being addressed.