A controversial proposal for the construction of 30 apartments in a 250-year-old scheduled property in Għaxaq, initially refused by the planning authority, is back on the agenda after the developer filed an appeal.
However, proceedings before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal which is hearing the case have stalled after the first sitting due to a potential conflict of interest involving the tribunal’s chairman, Martin Saliba.
Mr Saliba notified the parties he was recusing himself from the case in view of the fact that he had been involved in the early part of the application’s processing, known as screening. In view of this, it was decided to put off the case and appoint a new tribunal.
The application in question was unanimously refused last February and involved the development of the garden of Palazzo Giannin, which is a Grade 2 scheduled building. The status is granted to buildings of some architectural or historical interest or which contribute to the visual image of an urban conservation area.
The proposal comprised basement level garages, 30 residential units over five levels including penthouse and the restoration of what would remain of the baroque garden. It prompted a barrage of complaints, including a petition from NGO Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar, which has been endorsed by more than 1,700 objectors.
The PA had justified the refusal on grounds that the proposal would result in excessive development and have an adverse impact on the garden and palazzo, thus breaching cultural heritage protection policies.
In his appeal, the developer noted that an outline development permit had already been issued, meaning the regulator had agreed in principle that deve-lopment could take place.
It was also pointed out that scheduling of the property did not preclude any development and, furthermore, the PA had adopted doubled standards because an application on an adjacent property that once formed part of the palazzo had been approved. The plans had also been altered from those filed at outline stage to conform to certain requests.
The PA commented that the outline permit had only been issued in 2011 following an appeal before the same tribunal. The proposed application did not respect the conditions set.
The PA reiterated its concern that the proposal constituted excessive development and dismissed the argument that a permit had already been issued in an adjacent property, saying it was not a like-with-like comparison in terms of planning policies.