Case Study 1

Traditional property at 27 Triq Madonna Tas-Sacro Cuor

UPDATE JANUARY 2010  MEPA Enforcement officers inspected the crater that was dug after this unfortunate house was demolished; they declared "excavation works have in fact exceeded what has  been approved in permit PA5056/07. According to owner, excavations had to go deeper so that foundations could be laid on solid rock.  Owner  has  now  submitted an amended application in PA5227/09 to include a semi-basement level. However all works on site were suspended until outcome of this application."

The actions of MEPA in this case have been exemplary, but the claim of the owner that the rock beneath to original house was flawed is hardly credible considering the his A&CE supervisor has allowed excavation right up to the walls of the neighbouring two houses - which are both inhabited.

What is notable is inspection of the fresh plans reveal that any pretense of making the new multi-storey apartments look traditional has been abandoned.  In place of wooden balconies, there are modern ones; the proposed frontage is scarred by a niche (garage door) dedicated to that modern marvel - the car!  Doubtless these changes are influenced by the recent applications to develop the frontage nearby (from Forestals to the bus stop).

"Following a site inspection, HAC* board meeting 1010 dated 28/8/01, stated that the proposal cannot be accepted. The HAC stated that the existing row of buildings form a uniform terrace that is worth conserving."  

*HAC is the Heritage Advisory Committee instituted and consulted by MEPA to advise on cultural aspects of planning applications.

This statement referred to the ex-house below

 

 Quoted below are abstracts from the MEPA Case Officers official report for PA/03403/01 given in 2002:

 

"Both the HAC* and the directorate agree that in principle the demolition of the existing building should be refused. Furthermore the proposed development, runs counter to Structure Plan policy BEN 2 which seeks to protect the environmental characteristics and the visual integrity of the existing buildings. In view of this the proposal cannot be recommended.

 

REFUSE - for the following reasons:

1 - The design of the proposal is unacceptable in that it fails to respect or reflect the local context. It is therefore incompatible with the principles of good urban design and with the characteristics of the area, as it is unlikely to maintain the visual integrity of the area in which it is to be located. It is therefore counter to Structure Plan policy BEN 2.

2 - The proposed development is incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the area. It would not maintain the visual integrity of the area and so does not comply with Structure Plan policy BEN 2."

Despite above comments, permission was GRANTED in 2002 to demolish the original house and redevelop as 3 units.  This permission was apparently renewed, just in time, in late 2007 by PA/05056/07 without any further discussion of the merits of the case according to the information available online. 

As the status and future of this vulnerable and neglected house was unclear on the MEPA Mapserver this summer, a SRA member visited Floriana to enquire in person at MEPA.  The Front Office staff gave verbal re-assurance that all planning permissions on the site had expired or been  withdrawn. The MEPA employee volunteered that no development could take place without a fresh application being submitted allowing public consultation.  This comfort was to prove false...

On 25 September 2009 the original property was knocked down without warning.  (It has yet to be re-built).  The tragedy of this case is that the permission granted is for a five storey building that will blight the streetscape and doubtless promote the demolition of the remaining traditional properties adjacent in due course. 

The new development will display a slab side to the promenade, to the creek and to most of Manoel Island.  Three cramped apartments will be built in place of one traditional terraced house to the detriment of the streetscape and the area in general.

It should be noted that the justification that the area involved is zoned for five floors held true at the time the Case Officer gave their opinion above.  The Case Officer and HAC reports reflected instead the over-arching requirement to preserve character and amenity via considered town planning. 

Any open minded person viewing at the current zoning of Sliema may ask what was the logic (as opposed to the motivation) for excluding this row of houses from formal planning protection given its traditional features. 

It seems that zoning has become a self-fulfilling prophecy - once an street is zoned, it will be developed regardless of local or expert protest - it is just a matter of time in the view of MEPA.  The net result is a windfall profit for those owning property zoned for extra floors.  No compensation applies for those adjacent or those whose property is not zoned - or scheduled - even if equivalent or adjacent!  Is this equitable or reasonable?

It may be too late to reverse past mistakes, but the current North Harbours Local Plan includes many specific comments in which the authors urged a halt to the over development of Sliema for all the reasons repeated by SRA today.  These experts were paid by MEPA - just as Case Officers are.  It seems that MEPA's own staff have been ignored in this case - as in many others.