Decision time tomorrow on Nadur belevedere

The Mepa board will determine tomorrow whether to allow the building of a 1.4 metre high wall  which would block the view from Nadur belvedere.

The decision was postponed in July in a bid to try to come to an agreement about the application.

In a heated meeting in July it was board member Timothy Gambin who proposed a compromise: pushing back the present railing so that those on the belvedere could not look into the applicant’s land, and thus there would be no need for a wall to be built. The Nadur local council had accepted this compromise in a letter sent to MEPA in August.  

If the railing is set back visitors will still enjoy the view but not be able to look down into the applicant’s field.

The application, to build the 1.4 metre high wall, was filed by Andrew Vella and his family, owners of the field below the belvedere in David Cocco Palmeri Street and Mgarr Road.

The request is strongly opposed by the Nadur council and Nationalist MP Chris Said, a former Nadur mayor.

The applicant is proposing the 12.8 metre long wall along part of the belvedere instead of the railing, to separate the public place from the applicant’s property immediately below.  

Part of the green area below the belvedere belongs to Andrew Vella, who unsuccessfully applied to build two separate houses with a garage below the ridge. 

MEPA’s case officer has recommended the board to approve the application, dismissing numerous objections by the Nadur local council and residents.  

The council is opposed to the development because the wall would deprive the public of the view from the highest part of Nadur ridge, screening off scenic views, including of the Gozo channel, which can currently be viewed from the belvedere. 

The MEPA case officer justified the positive recommendation by pointing out that a court decision has allowed the construction of the 1.5m wall above belvedere level, to delineate the property; and that the revised 1.4m height is the height normally allowed for a front garden boundary wall “so as to reduce the obstruction of views.” 

The case officer said that although the site is a green area, “the proposed wall respects the court sentence and has been re-designed to better reflect its context.” 

In 2004, MEPA had already refused the construction of a house and garage right below the proposed wall. An identical application on an adjoining plot owned by Vella was also refused in 2003. 

The 2004 refusal was recommended by the case officer because the site was a green area “as defined in the Temporary Provisions Scheme for Nadur and so it is located in an area which should be developed for recreational purposes.”