Tribunal confirms PA rejection of Valletta Suq canopies

The planning tribunal has rejected an appeal by Arkadia Limited against the Planning Authority’s refusal to install two large retractable canopies in front of the Suq tal-Belt.

The retractable canopies were intended to replace existing illegal structures cluttering the site. They would have left a small central area in front of the listed Suq tal-Belt building unobstructed, while visually dominating the two sides of the building.

The current structures that cover the whole area in front of the building were originally approved through a Development Notification Order, which was only valid for a year.

The present structure remains in place nearly five years after Arkadia was hit by an enforcement order from the PA in October 2019, making the group liable for a daily fine of €50.

The appeal against the enforcement order is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for 16 January 2025, further delaying any action to remove the existing canopies.

In a hearing held in September, the Environment Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT)

postponed the case due to Arkadia’s other appeal against the proposed structures, which has now been concluded.

In its decision, the Tribunal stated that Arkadia’s alternative proposal would still have a negative impact on the “legibility” of the Grade 1 listed building, which should be appreciated as a “standalone” structure. It also noted that visuals of the proposed canopies confirm they would obstruct appreciation of this prominent building. The Tribunal referred to planning guidelines in the Development Control Design Policy (DC15), which specify that “structures shall not be permitted if they will disrupt the architectural equilibrium or rhythm of the façades in the streetscape.”

Furthermore, the Tribunal pointed out that the two proposed tents on both sides of the historic building would have been of a “permanent nature”, erected on a fixed metal structure.

Arkadia, however, argues that the proposal is specifically intended to avoid “placing umbrellas indiscriminately along the façade of the scheduled building”, which creates “clutter and a drab environment.”

Arkadia also asserted that although all of Valletta is designated as an Urban Conservation Area (UCA), the capital was a commercial hub and a primary town centre where canopies can be permitted. They cited the canopies along the Valletta Waterfront as an example of different policies being applied in different parts of the city.

In its appeal, Arkadia highlighted that the land in question was privately owned through an emphyteusis, and that the historical building had been restored through private direct investment, becoming “a prime culinary destination in Valletta for locals and tourists alike.”

The group insisted that the outside catering area was a “key component” to the success of this operation, as they require a space that can be effectively used year-round without interruption from the elements.