Tribunal consents to relocation of tables and chairs

At issue was a planning application to shift a ‘licensed outdoor catering area’ currently located at the upper part of the garden next to Villa Spinola (in St Julian’s), closer to the entrance. Following a thorough analysis, the Planning Commission turned down applicant’s request due to the following reasons:

The proposed development was deemed to run counter to the provisions of Policy NHPV 09 of the North Harbours Local Plan which specifies that the garden in question should be redesigned as a new public open space ‘to act as a gateway from St Julian’s into Paceville via Paceville Avenue’;

1. The proposal ran counter to the SPED Urban Objective 3 which aims to protect and enhance the character and amenity of urban areas;
2. The proposed development was also incompatible with the National Environment Policy (2012) which states that public gardens should be preserved;
3. The proposed development would result in the loss of open green spaces in an otherwise urban area;
4. The proposal was not compliant with policy P10 of the Outdoor Catering Policy which states that new catering areas should ‘not adversely affect the characteristics of any public open space of significant historical, architectural, natural or social importance’;
5. The proposed development was of an excessive scale and would thus lead to an overdevelopment of the site;
6. The proposed development would alter the appearance of a public garden and detract from the historical, architectural, natural and social value of an important garden.

 In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal against the Authority’s decision before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that his application should have been granted permission. In his appeal, applicant, now appellant, brought forward the following arguments:

The ‘relocated’ tables and chairs would occupy only a small part of the garden. Therefore, the garden could still serve as a ‘gateway from St Julian’s into Paceville via Paceville Avenue’;

At present, the garden was in a state of neglect whereas appellant would ensure that it would be kept in a good state.

In reply, the case officer representing the Authority reiterated that permission should not be granted. Whilst acknowledging that  the commercial use of public spaces could be allowed ‘if the Authorities are satisfied that the extent of the concession does not detract from the amenity of the location and its surroundings’, the officer was not convinced that this proposal would provide added value to the ‘overall quality’ of the area around Villa Spinola. The officer maintained that the proposal was tantamount to the loss of open green space in an urban area.
In its assessment, the Tribunal immediately acknowledged that the garden in question featured significant historical and architectural characteristics.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal took note of the fact that, contrary to what the Authority had previously asserted, the area earmarked for relocation was not officially designated as a public open space.  

In addition, it was observed that appellant was already in possession of an area which had been reserved for the placement of tables and chairs. Against this background, the Tribunal was not against the proposed relocation, provided that  the tables and chairs were placed on a raised wooden platform.