Residential complex in Spinola approved
An artist’s impression of the approved proposal for the Villa Frieres residential development overlooking Spinola Bay in St Julian’s.
The planning watchdog yesterday unanimously approved the development of a substantially downsized residential complex overlooking the picturesque Spinola Bay in St Julian’s.
The project includes the restoration of the historic Villa Frieres, beneath the parish church, to convert it into a diplomatic residence.
The original proposal was first made in 2002, with a massive 21-unit residential complex spread over seven floors.
However, as it went through the planning sifters, developers reduced the building mass and shrunk it even further since the board discussed the proposal in April.
The developer’s architect, Edwin Mintoff, told the Malta Environment and Planning Authority board yesterday that the project was substantially downsized to secure approval.
The latest approved plans were almost two floors smaller than the original, with the top floor recessed a further 10 metres to be almost invisible from bay level.
Developer Joe Cortis wanted to put an end to the decade-long process and finally see his project come to fruition.
Dr Mintoff said the project was now down to 12 units: nine three-bedroom apartments, one two-bedroom apartment and two one-bedroom apartments.
It will also see commercial spaces at ground floor level and a parking area with just seven spaces, 17 fewer than what is required and the developer will be paying close to €20,000 to make up for the parking spaces he could not offer.
The project will extend from the present building line, between Saddles Bar and the villa’s gate, and the parish church parking area above.
During yesterday’s meeting, only a few residents of neighbouring buildings voiced their concerns, as they had done in previous hearings. Those who spoke asked for clarifications.
Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar’s Astrid Vella praised the planning watchdog for showing how “a workable compromise” could easily be reached following a detailed process bringing all parties together.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
In Discussion
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...
Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
No appeals board for first part of power...
Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...
BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
n said
Nov 30th 2012, 15:32
finally an upgrade to the very horrible and dirty facade!!!
Mr Andrew Camilleri
Nov 30th 2012, 15:58
The 'horribe and dirty facacade' is old and typical of Malta. Did we need to destroy it to fix it and build another souless building, like it seen all over the Med?
A. E. ABELA
Nov 30th 2012, 15:26
Isn’t such an old building protected?
Since the project has been reduced I am sure that a car park can be included, this will increase the value of the apartments.
The St.Julian’s Parish without a car park will be restricted to people that don’t go by car.
An existing shop the size of a two car garage has to pay EUR7,000.00.
Astrid Vella
Nov 30th 2012, 14:39
What I actually said was that this was a case where the planning process produced a positive compromise. However if it were not for residents and NGOs which are often written off as being 'vociferous', MEPA would have continued with the Major Unit's recommendation to approve a project that walled up the bedroom windows of the neighbours. This is very worrying and should be investigated
A Cachia
Nov 30th 2012, 12:33
That is one ugly building!
martin chetcuti
Nov 30th 2012, 11:53
What I see is a nice decent project for the area instead of the shabiness as it is at present.
Of course neighbours are not happy for obstructing there views and for the inconvenience that such works create until completion..
But regulations do exist and as long the developer sticks to them its ok. Justice and common sense prevailed...
James Tyrrell
Nov 30th 2012, 14:41
Well I don't know where you live Martin but I sure know where you don't live, in a neighbouring property to this thing. As you say regulations exist but MEPA usually manage to twist them in favour of the developers because the little guy doesn't matter. Would you have been happy having your bedroom windows bricked up Martin?
martin chetcuti
Nov 30th 2012, 16:17
@James Tyrell
Quote:''MEPA usually manage to twist them in favour of the developers because the little guy doesn't matter''. Such accusations are common towards authorities when Quote:''the little guy'' do not understand for it is very easy to fire such accusations.
And no bedroom windows can be bricked since there are sanitary laws to abide with but yes they can be obstructed..
James Tyrrell
Nov 30th 2012, 21:14
Martin try to study the original plans and you will find that neighbours bedroom windows were going to be walled in. Even Peter Gingell admitted that this had been the case and that it was a mistake on MEPA's part.
effie stafrace
Nov 30th 2012, 11:28
mrs artrid vella should be given gieh ir republika for being such a great defender of the enviorment.pity there is only one of her kind.
Fabien Sant Fournier
Nov 30th 2012, 11:03
are we going to loose the staircase adjacent to saddles which leads to the bottom of lapsi street?!?
martin chetcuti
Nov 30th 2012, 12:01
@Fabien Sant Fournier
I do believe that if it is on public land its access cannot be closed.
I do hope that if it is to remain it will be also embellished to complement this project instead of it is present shabby state.
Astrid Vella
Nov 30th 2012, 14:33
No, Fabian, the staircase cannot be touched. In fact our pressure has led to the developers having to lower the height of the adjacent building and step it back, to retain its characteristics as a village alleyway rather than a dark, narrow canyon.
adam spalding
Nov 30th 2012, 11:03
12 units seven parking spaces.
31 beds seven parking spaces !!!!
Get real .... the island is being destroyed. What good is money ???
Can't anyone see that developing in this way destroys business and the very fabric of peoples lives . Its absolutely shocking and irresponsible.
the reality is 31 beds has the potential for 62 cars.
A. Muscat
Nov 30th 2012, 10:58
A.MUSCAT
The RIVER has always something to say.
Adrian E. Camilleri
Nov 30th 2012, 10:40
Quote " It will also see commercial spaces at ground floor level and a parking area with just seven spaces, 17 fewer than what is required and the developer will be paying close to €20,000 to make up for the parking spaces he could not offer." Unquote. "Seventeen fewer parking spaces than is required" is worrying in that this development is going to cause more problems. It is obvious. Pity!
Mrs diana cottis
Nov 30th 2012, 10:22
So it has 17 fewer parking spaces than it requires and the developer only pays 20,000 Euros. How much does a parking space/garage actually cost in that area? This MEPA "fine" should be more realistic.
MEPA should be pro-active and state in advance what would be acceptable for the square (a PLAN) not haggle with greedy developers.
Mark Vella
Nov 30th 2012, 10:16
snif snif...i smell elections!
fred sammut
Nov 30th 2012, 10:36
yeah.......
Peter Murray
Nov 30th 2012, 09:50
Was the issue totally about the " size" of this project?Also the purported "restoration" of the historic Villa Frieres is actually just another approval for another residence , however it is sugar-coated ,and is only being "restored" for that "diplomatic"prupose alone.
Please choose the reason of your report below: