I refer to the article ‘More construction work for fed-up Sliema residents’ (The Sunday Times, August 5). The article, while touching other issues, mainly focuses on a recent planning permit granted by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s Environment and Planning Commission (EPC) on a site between Sir Arturo Mercieca and Don Mikiel Rua streets in Sliema.

In the article it is reported that this planning permit was granted despite the negative recommendation of the case officer who cited the proposed development “not acceptable” because the height of the apartment block in Sir Arturo Mercieca Street exceeded planning policies and “there are no previous applications on site which justify the excess height”. Additionally, the case officer also noted that the proposed facades were “incompatible” with the urban design of the area and characteristics of the Urban Conservation Area (UCA).

Mepa would like to clarify and point out that what the published article failed to mention was that the EPC overturned the case officer’s recommendation after the applicant had adhered to the commission’s request to revise the plans and improved elevation design to respect UCA characteristics.

In the re-submitted plans, the applicant eliminated an entire floor, resulting in a building height of three floors and two receded floors on Sir Arturo Mercieca Street with no penthouses.

Although this exceeds the height limitation in this street by one floor, the commission took into consideration that the site is flanked by two permitted developments which are higher than this proposed development. The commission considered the amended proposal to comply with Policy NHSJ06, which allows additional floors to cover blank party walls of adjacent permitted buildings resulting also in a consolidated streetscape and skyline.

While the authority understands the inconvenience that any type of construction works may have on residents in an area, it is not within the authority’s control to dictate whether a planning application can be submitted or not. Mepa is bound by law to process and decide on applications submitted within a definite timeframe and decisions can only be based on planning grounds, not on construction timeframes.

No matter the number of mitigation measures, construction works are a great nuisance and inconvenience for any resident living side by side to an ongoing development. The authority, within its legal remit, imposes within a planning permit, conditions which help mitigate these works, such as the construction site management regulations and bank guarantees to ensure that the pavements and roads are restored after construction works are completed.