Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Old armoury extension to be preserved and restored
This building is being incorporated within the development. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
The extension to an armoury used by the Knights of Malta in Qormi will not be demolished but will be conserved and fully restored, the planning authority said denying reports that it would be developed.
Fondazzjoni Ulied Ħal-Qormi and Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar held a press conference on site last week and claimed the structure was in danger of being demolished and replaced with flats.
But the extension, which dates back to the 17th century, will be preserved while the planned apartments will be built next to the armoury, which now serves as a police station.
"I am bound by a bank guarantee not to touch it and I actually included it in the plans for the development," developer Noel Vella insisted.
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority gave him the go-ahead to build a three-storey block of flats, which includes a receded penthouse.
Before the outline permit was granted, Mepa's Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee carried out an on-site visit and recommended the extension be preserved against a bank guarantee.
In the full permit, the regulator imposed the conservation of the extension without any form of excavation beneath. Mr Vella was also ordered to keep an open space of 20 feet between the flats and the hall and include a garden in his plans.
He was bound by a €1,870 bank guarantee to fully comply with the plans. If the building is damaged during construction, he would be forced to restore it to its original state, according to a Mepa spokesman.
The spokesman pointed out that no objection had ever been filed against the development despite the planning application being made public on the website and advertised in the press along with the site notice.
When contacted yesterday, Miriam Cremona, from the FAA, said the matter was very complicated given that there were many applications being filed in the area. She denied that the organisation had said the armoury would be demolished, insisting that the group was not referring to the armoury but the extension.
The FAA said last Saturday it was concerned "about the destruction of the Qormi armoury caused by a series of planning applications submitted to Mepa for the construction of garages, maisonettes and apartments".
RSS
Comments
Recently they marched with others at Bahrija (well done). What was their main objective, the construction at the Valley or Dr.Scerri???
And.....after all, our watchdog for MEPA is playing home re the Qormi Armoury issue.
SHAME ON YOU MEPA !!
I have a bank guarantee of 7000 euros (Lm3000) to retain an UN HISTORICAL façade 15ft wide and dated 1940s (01246/06), the building is finished safe and sound and still with out my bank guarantee released.
2 weights and 2 measures ??
Excellent question. Obviously someone who cannot add 1 and 1 together.
MEPA tistghu tkunu REDIKOLI aktar minn hekk?
U bil-bini kwazi jmiss maghha wkoll!!!!!!!!
Who can blame the people who always think about corruption whenever MEPA is concerned?
jista’ s-Sur Vella forsi jaghilna fost l-ohrajn, fejn spicca l-garigor li kien jaghti ghas-sulari ta’ fuq tal-post koncernat u li ghadu jider car mill-hitan, li dan kien fuq quddiem bejn l-post mhuri fir-ritratt u l-ghassa ???
Dan apparti li l-garanzija ta' €1,870 hija redikola meta sahansitra l-bejgha ta' garage fiz-zona huwa bil-wisq aktar minn hekk.
Therefore contrary to what is stated above the Qormi Armoury will be further seriously impacted and compromised. Irrespective of recommendations for refusal the outline development permit was granted to PA 03261/04 and on the strength of that PA 02397/07 was also granted a permit. All that remains of the building/property is the room at the rear which can only add value to the development to the advantage of the developer.
Two previous applications were submitted on the same date for the site in question PA 3263/04 for development permission which was withdrawn. The second PA 03261/04 submitted on the same day as the other was for outline development permission. Both were recommended for refusal by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage which submitted two reports in respect of both stating that ‘proposed developments which contemplate the demolition of this property should not be granted.’