Sliema house should be protected
Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the pro-demolition camp, it is indeed disgraceful that MEPA has, in principle, sanctioned the complete demolition of one of the oldest houses in Sliema. Barely two years ago the authorities invested in the...
Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the pro-demolition camp, it is indeed disgraceful that MEPA has, in principle, sanctioned the complete demolition of one of the oldest houses in Sliema. Barely two years ago the authorities invested in the embellishment of the village core where this house is sited - no doubt, also with MEPA's blessing.
According to MEPA Case No. 04447/05, the application type covers the Full Development Permission for (i) the demolition; and (ii) the construction of basement garages, shop at ground floor level, four floors of apartments and a fifth floor for the penthouse.
In addition to grounds put forward by others, I strongly maintain that the final plan should not be approved for several valid reasons.
Given the very small footprint of the house, it would appear that the current shop, on which the High Street part of the house rests, would have to be demolished as there is physically no space for the construction of a second shop, entrance to the block of flats and access to the underground garages, all at street level, as applied for by the developer.
In other words, for the works as described in the application to materialise, other sites within High Street, would also have to be demolished. This is not stated in the application.
I must also highlight that a large, arched well, shared by third-party houses, is located under the house. I wonder whether this been taken into consideration or possibly ignored by the developers and MEPA?
Part of the proposed development overlooks a very narrow pedestrian alley approximately 3.6 metres wide with a number of commercial and residential units just across the alley. Thus the proposed development does not satisfy policy 12.3 of the Design & Policy Guidance 2005 that stipulates a minimum distance of six metres across habitable rooms.
Finally, the house is located within the UCA - logically and rightly, one assumes that it should be protected and not completely demolished. Other properties in High Street, Howard Street, Dingli Street, etc. were obliged to retain their existing façade by MEPA even though most were not even located within the UCA.
This is a clear case of inconsistency on the part of the authorities and throws a bad light on the manner in which planning issues are being handled in this country.