Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1512576
10 NEWS maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 DECEMBER 2023 JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt A proposal to add three floors to a row of nine listed Grade 2 townhouses in Paceville which date back to the 1930s is being favourably recommended by both the case officer and the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. The row of scheduled two sto- rey townhouses fronting Triq il-Wilga and Triq Paceville, dates back from the interwar period and is currently sched- uled as a Grade 2 property, a status which normally pre- cludes demolition or significant alterations to the buildings. In this case the townhouses will not be demolished but will have three full storeys constructed on top of them. The proposed additional floors have been accepted in principle by the Superintendence for Cul- tural Heritage in view of the 1m setback of the upper floors. Since the outline application as presented is meant to estab- lish the parameters for a future full development, the design of the project will only be ap- proved at that later stage, after the PA has committed the site for a five-storey development. Despite the impact on the cul- tural heritage no photomontag- es have been requested at this stage. The Superintendence normal- ly does not agree with an in- crease in volumes and heights of scheduled buildings. But in 2021 a spokesperson for the SCH justified approval of the proposal as a way of covering the "unsightly blank walls" on both sides of this row of town- houses. "In this particular case, the set- ting of the scheduled houses has been severely prejudiced with modern high development that is creating very unsightly blank walls and overbearing massing which have a detrimental effect on the legibility and appreci- ation of the scheduled houses themselves." Heritage NGO Din l-Art Hel- wa is strongly objecting to the proposed new storeys, warning that the proposed three floors above the existing volume "will completely transform the site, with the original massing and traditional character being completely obliterated". DLH said buildings scheduled at Grade 2 must be protected in their entirety. "Furthermore, additional development can on- Three new floors could be approved THE Beefbar owners have filed an appeal in a bid to overturn the Planning Authority's rejection in October of their application to install a floating pontoon for boat- ers. The proposal by Jean Paul Tes- ta proposed three single-point moorings and a demountable floating pontoon to be used be- tween May 1 and October 31. The Beef Bar restaurant wants the pontoon to serve as a landing point for seaborne customers, owing to its coastline location, be- tween May and mid-September. The pontoon and its gantry will cover a 600sq.m area, extending for 15m, with three single moor- ings some 55m off the coastline. The development was mainly rejected because the the propos- al runs counter to the Northwest Local Plan, which excludes devel- opments that compromise pub- lic access to the foreshore. The development was also deemed to breach Strategic Plan for Environ- ment and Development (SPED), which states that new recreation- al facilities should not "restrict or interfere with physical and visual public access of the coast." But in their appeal the develop- ers insist that the policy in ques- tion only applies to the use of "ex- isting structures" which are not covered by a permit adding that all existing structures in the area are endowed with a permit. The local plan policy itself states that tourism development can be allowed only in five circumstanc- es. These include instances where the existing structures are covered by an existing permit and instanc- es when "public access to the fore- shore is not compromised". In a play on words, the develop- ers have argued that while the PA contends the pontoon develop- ment "might" compromise public access, the policy is only applicable when public access is definitive- ly compromised. Moreover, they contend that public access "will not be remotely compromised" by the application. In their appeal the owners of the Beefbar refer to the clearance is- sued by the Environment and Re- sources authority, which had ini- tially objected to the development but subsequently had a change of heart. They also insist that the area is not recognised as a swim- ming zone. But environmentalists led by Din l-Art Helwa have also filed their own appeal against the PA's decision. The appeal is not aimed at revoking the refusal but at strengthening the decision through reference to other poli- cies which the Planning Commis- sion had overlooked. Din l-Art Helwa contends that the development if allowed would be in breach of a local plan poli- cy regulating "motorised water sports." This policy bans moor- ings for jet skis and sports boats whenever the location is deemed incompatible with existing us- es and whenever public access is compromised. Moreover, the policy bans moorings anchored in the sea for this purpose. They also referred to another local plan pol- icy regulating "jetties, pontoons and slip ways", which specifically states that such development can only be allowed if deemed "com- patible" with existing uses. Although the area in question is not recognised as an official swim- ming zone, it is regularly used by bathers who frequent the area. During the PA meeting when the application was turned down, St Paul's Bay Mayor Alfred Grima and lawyer Claire Bonello from Din l-Art Ħelwa argued that the area had been used for recreation- al swimming for years, regardless of official designation. Commission chair Martin Camilleri warned that approving the application would set a prec- edent for more intense foreshore development, potentially conflict- ing with local plans. Unanimously, all three commis- sion members voted to refuse the permit. AIS Environment, who penned Beefbar's project development statement, acknowledged that the pontoon would increase maritime traffic, and "could lead to a domi- no-effect for the local commercial activities in the area". Beefbar appeals PA's refusal of Bugibba pontoon for boats Environmentalists have also appealed the decision insisting the development breaches other policies not included in the PA's decision