Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/674824
6 JAMES DEBONO THE newly set up Environment Resources Authority is taking a firm stance against the regulari- sation of illegalities in Paradise Bay. In a letter sent to the Planning Authority, the ERA has made it clear that the proposed sanc- tioning of the lido is objection- able and any development in this sensitive area is to be limited to that already covered by previous permits issued on the site. "Any other development is to be removed and the site's land- scape, topography and ecology restored," it told the Planning Authority. The ERA also noted that "piecemeal interventions" in the area have resulted in the prolif- eration of various physical inter- ventions and the transformation of a beach bar into "a sizeable complex." According to the ERA these developments have altered the natural characteristics of the site, the beach landscape and the diminution of the sandy beach. The ERA does not have the power to stop any proposed development but can object to such development and can also present an appeal to the Envi- ronment and Planning Review Tribunal if the development is approved by the Planning Au- thority. How to sanction an illegality The lido is replete with ir- regularities, which under the MEPA reform of 2011 could not be regularised because Paradise Bay is a scheduled area. But the reversal by the current admin- istration of this landmark re- form makes it possible for owner Charles Micallef to regularise past illegalities, and a planning application was presented by ar- chitect William Lewis in 2015. A project development state- ment from consultants ADI As- sociates on behalf of Micallef now proposes ways of improv- ing the environment in the ar- ea, which will still retain most of the lido's illegal structures, in a bid to "blend in with the surrounding context", such as painting the lido stairway in 'earth colour'. A metal pipe frame and bam- boo cover on the roof of the lido's building is to be removed so that the area can be converted into a lounge area for evening use, with loungers, low tables, low-level down-lighters, and planters. The owners also want to ex- tend a pontoon for visiting din- ghies, and for visitors coming on tenders from larger boats moored offshore. The major environmental gain of the project will be the remov- al of a terrace at the back of the beach and the demolition of an illegal storage room. The owners also claim they will attempt to reconstruct the sand dunes in the area, by re- moving a retaining rubble wall. According to the PDS, old aerial photographs suggest the land- ward area of the beach could have sustained sand dune for- mations up to around 60 years ago. "No information exists on when these dunes were lost, but the construction of terraces at the back of the beach, especially those beneath the slopes on the eastern side of the bay, surely did not help." A Restoration Method State- ment prepared at MEPA's request has recommended the removal of the current terrace structure at the back of the beach and the introduction of sand dune veg- etation. But the application retains a number of illegalities on this Natura 2000 site. A room be- neath the restaurant's terrace will be sanctioned and extended underground to provide addi- tional storage to compensate for the demolition of another illegal storage room: "indispensable for the storage of sun beds and um- brellas, particularly during the winter months when wave action can be pretty severe". Another illegal terrace used for sunbathing purposes and "private functions" will also be retained. According to the PDS the site of the lido itself covers an area of approximately 2,000 square metres. This includes a bar and restaurant, including a kitchen and a covered dining terrace, a beach shop, toilet fa- cilities and showers. The appli- cation fails to address the occu- pation of the beach by sunbeds. Patrons of the lido use various terraces located around the res- taurant area as sunbathing decks but they are also used to host private functions, especially in the evenings. The PDS acknowledges that the eastern-most terrace does not form part of the lido but the lido operator still rents out umbrel- las and sunbeds to visitors who prefer to stay in this area in the same way that they rent out um- brellas and deck chairs to people on the sandy beach. Through the application, these terraced areas covering approxi- mately 1,700m2 would also be "restored". In an objection sent to MEPA in December, heritage associa- tion Din l-Art Helwa objected to any sanctioning of any illegal extension of the lido into the surrounding area, noting that the permit issued in 1999 had al- ready considerably enlarged the lido. "What was (in the 1960s) a small lido has now grown in pro- portion in a way that it overpow- ers the bay, extending from one side to the other," it said. Din l-Art Helwa is objecting to any regularisation of a terrace adjoined to the lido which has taken an "extensive area of the bay", insisting that this should be reverted to the original natu- ral state. The eNGO is also ob- jecting to the placing of tables and chairs on the roof over the lido, noting that this would only increase the volume of the devel- opment. Din l-Art Helwa insists that the site should be restored in a way which creates a "gentle gradient to the bay". A planning saga lasting 20 years The site was originally leased to Charles Micallef through a letter issued by the government in 1994, for a licensed catering establishment – but it included a special condition, which obliged the lessee to use the area solely for the placing of tables, umbrel- las and deckchairs. In October 1994, the Planning Authority issued an enforcement notice for concrete paving that was installed without a permit. Micallef appealed, saying he had not changed the use of the site and was therefore in com- pliance with the special condi- tion of the lease requiring him to use the area solely for the placing of tables, umbrellas and deckchairs. The appeal was dis- missed. In 1999 however, MEPA issued a permit for additions and al- terations to the existing restau- rant, leaving the staircase and terraces in an irregular position. Subsequently, two applications to regularise the development were rejected in 2004. In 2008, MEPA issued enforce- ment notices over two rooms built without a permit. In 2009, another enforcement was issued over the deposit of concrete to form passages, the deposit of construction material and new boundary walls without a permit on a scheduled property. In March 2014, a new enforce - ment order was issued against the construction of an illegal canopy covering the restaurant's terrace, the construction of a room being used as a kitchen, the creation of concrete paved areas used for the placing of sun- beds and umbrellas, the levelling of pathways and the develop- ment of cladded boundary walls between sand level and concrete area. maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 4 MAY 2016 News ERA objects to Paradise Bay regularisation The Paradise Bay lido is replete with irregularities which, under the 2011 MEPA reform, could not be regularised Alhambra to get extra four new floors JAMES DEBONO THE former Alhambra cinema in Sliema, whose lower floor pres- ently houses the Zara outlet, will get an extra three floors and a penthouse level on it to make way for six new apartments and a penthouse, with the building's height rising from 22 metres to 35.5 metres. The development conforms to the eight floors (plus penthouse) height limitation set in the lo- cal plan but would create a huge blank party wall on its right hand side because the adjacent site is currently occupied by a three-sto- rey building. But the case officer pointed out that this building can still be developed as an eight-sto- rey block and act as a "transition" to buildings on the Tower Road hill, where there is a height limita- tion of five floors. The development was approved yesterday by the Environment Planning Commission, by two votes against one. While chair- person Elizabeth Ellul and Simon Saliba voted in favour, Dr Charles Grech voted against. Residents living in the existing block expressed concern on the stability of the structure in view of the additional floors over a building dating back to the 1960s. They also claimed that the project would result in an unsightly blank party wall and that the penthous- es would reduce the roof space. They also lamented the in- creased pressures on the outdated and limited facilities of the exist- ing building. The Planning Di- rectorate, which recommended the development, dismissed most of these concerns as civil issues which do not fall under the PA's jurisdiction. The Alhambra Cinema was a large cinema on the Sliema seafront