Mepa gives partial clearance

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority board yesterday sanctioned the demolition and reconstruction of part of a development on St Anne Square, in Sliema, that has sparked off a controversy even ending up before the courts this week.

The saga continues, however, because the authority did not give a go ahead to the whole development, postponing that decision to a later date and asking for more façade design options.

The issue goes back a few months when a number of residents living adjacent to the building in question, a shop, started complaining that the way the owner intended developing the site would block a substantial part of their airway. This, they argued, would breach sanitary laws.

Mepa had admitted to The Times that the development would breach sanitary laws but said it could do nothing about it. In June, however, the board revoked the permit, saying the original plans contained incorrect information that had a bearing on their original approval.

Sanitary laws require that, on the ground floor, a building should leave at least 10 feet of airspace from an adjacent building, a distance which is supposed to increase by three feet every floor. But the plans approved showed the construction of a straight wall with no recesses all the way up eight floors.

The plans submitted yesterday included a recess and walls were removed but some board members still did not appear happy with the designs. The authority approved the redevelopment of the ground floor and the basement but not of the rest of the floors.

Residents strongly opposed the approval, arguing that the application was outside the temporary scheme according to the north harbour local plan. The case officer's report, however, says it is within the scheme.

They even tried to block the meeting through court proceedings but the request was dismissed, some two hours after the meeting had begun.

However, the man leading the residents, Chris Vassallo, said later the outcome of the decision was positive. "The developer dealt with a number of issues we had raised. We are happy with the direction this has taken. If the developer rectifies the last pending issues we will not make any objections," Mr Vassallo said.

Court ruling

A court yesterday dismissed a request filed by Sliema residents to stop the Malta Environment and Planning Authority board from processing applications for a development overlooking St Anne Square during a meeting held in the morning.

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, in the First Hall of the Civil Court, gave the ruling about two hours after the Mepa board had started evaluating the applications. Rosa Marie Bauer Winter, Chris Vassallo, Michel Micallef Trigona and Philip Forace - whose homes overlook St Anne Square - asked the court to issue a warrant of prohibitory injunction to stop Mepa from processing the two applications.

The applications had been submitted by the developer of a proposed block of apartments overlooking the square.

The first application (PA 1176/00) was for the extension of a commercial outlet onto St Anne Square. A permit to this application had originally been granted but was later withdrawn after the Mepa board found that the developer had submitted incorrect information. The board decided that the developer was to submit a fresh set of plans to be evaluated in yesterday's meeting.

On June 8, when the Mepa board revoked the original permit, the developer submitted a second application (PA 3706/06) requesting the sanctioning of irregularities on site.

The residents claimed that the second application did not seek the sanctioning of all irregular works. This precluded the Mepa board from processing the original application during the meeting, they argued.

In its reply, Mepa argued that it was inconceivable that the residents would ask that it did not process an application. The residents had other remedies at hand as they could resort to the Appeals Board.

When the first application was first decided on, in November 2001, the residents had not raised any objections. In the decision taken on June 8 this year Mepa decided that it was willing to reconsider the application as modified and publicly declared there would be a public meeting in which it was to be decided whether the revised application conformed to Mepa's requirements.

Mepa added that the second application addressed all irregularities on site.

It therefore pleaded with the court not to issue the warrant of prohibitory injunction and allow the meeting to go on as planned.

In a decision handed down when the meeting was already in progress, Mr Justice Micallef ruled that after examining all the documents exhibited and the applicable law, he concluded that the warrant was not the only protection that could be availed of by the residents.

He also found that not all the elements required by law for the issue of such a warrant were present in this case and so dismissed the residents' request.

Lawyer Joseph Ellis represented the residents.

Lawyer Ian Stafrace represented Mepa.