Developers behind a controversial application which objectors said would ruin a row of 1930s Art Deco townhouses have agreed to scale down their plans in a compromise with residents.
The proposal originally sought to add two extra floors, one set back, atop one of the three-storey houses in Trejqet Sant’Injazju, Sliema, to convert it into two duplex apartments.
Among several objectors, the Sliema Heritage Society had said the project would result in the “mutilation of this largely well preserved row of houses”, while Din L-Art Ħelwa described it as “insensitive to the context”.
But developers later submitted amended plans eliminating one of the additional floors. The project will now consist solely of an extension of an existing recessed washroom, which will not be visible from the street, respecting the height of the surrounding houses.
The updated proposal, which residents described as acceptable, was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission earlier today.
The building in question forms part of a uniform row of Art Deco townhouses, with a high level of architectural value reflected in a B+ street categorisation, while the opposite side of the road is made up mostly of newer six-storey buildings.
The project had been recommended for approval by the PA, with the case officer noting that the proposed works were “minimal” and would “adapt the building for modern habitation” without negatively affecting its architectural character.
Neighbouring residents said today’s decision should serve as a precedent following a spike over the last year in applications targeting characteristic townhouses for apartments or guesthouses.
Similar applications have sprouted across the town, including in other well-preserved rows in Dingli Street and lower Sacro Cuor Street, with newer existing buildings often used to justify further development.
While some applications retain the building’s original façade, objectors consistently maintain that the additional levels placed above disturb the character of the traditional streetscape.
Clarification: An earlier version of this article mistakenly stated that the PA case officer had recommended the proposal for approval before it was amended. The recommendation was made only after the proposal had been reduced on the PA’s request