The Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises has failed in its bid to overturn the Planning Authority’s decision to renew a permit issued in 2011 for a development at a prime site in Paceville known as Mercury House.
The GRTU had challenged the decision as it claimed that this project was in breach of a development brief issued in 2005. The latter provided for the creation of a public piazza next to the building previously used as a telephone exchange for GO.
Instead, the PA had given the green light for a plan which would encroach on this proposed open space, and effectively wipe it off the map to the detriment of the neighbouring business and retail outlets it represented, the GRTU had complained.
Approved in September 2011, the development is described as the fourth phase of the Pender Place project and comprises an underground car park, commercial areas and office space within Mercury House.
Read: Over 80 per cent of Mercury House snapped up
It will be restored due to its historic importance, including Cold War rooms underneath the building
The latter will be restored due to its historic importance, including Cold War rooms underneath the building which have the highest degree of protection from the PA. Moreover, the permit covers the transfer of 10,000 square metres of floor space from Pender Place.
In December 2016, the developer, Edmund Gatt Baldacchino of Pender Ville Ltd, submitted an application to renew the permit. The GRTU had objected, but in February last year the PA approved the renewal. Subsequently, the GRTU sought redress by filing an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. Apart from the piazza issue, the decision was challenged as according to the aggrieved party the development would go against the North Harbour Local Plan.
On their part both the PA and the permit holder pointed out that in view of the fact that there had been no changes in the aforementioned planning policies during the period between the issuance of the permit and the renewal application, there were no grounds against the renewal.
Read: Mercury House to double in size
Furthermore, they argued that the merits of development itself had already been at the heart of a separate appeal which had been rejected.
In its decision the tribunal upheld the arguments made by the PA and the developer and noted that both the 2005 development brief and the North Harbour Local Plan were in force when the permit had been issued in 2011.
In view of this the PA had applied the provision of the law in the correct manner, as in such circumstances there would be no grounds to reconsider the application.