An application to instal retractable canopies in front of the Grade 1 scheduled Is-Suq tal-Belt building was rejected by the Planning Board on Thursday in a unanimous vote.

The application by Arkadia Marketing Ltd sought to remove existing canopies, which are subject to an enforcement notice that has yet to be decided and replace them with free-standing retractable ones. 

Despite the pending enforcement notice, Arkadia has argued that the existing canopies are covered by a development notification order filed in 2018. 

In April, the planning directorate’s case officer recommended the application for refusal, saying the proposed canopies do not relate to the facade of the scheduled building and that planning policies do not permit such canopies in an urban conservation area but only awnings and free-standing umbrellas. 

Is-Suq tal-Belt is housed in a structure originally built between 1859 and 1861 on the site of old prisons. The building was designed by the Superintendent of Public Works, Hector Zimelli and completed under the direction of Emanuele Luigi Galizia. It is reputed to be the first building in Malta to be constructed mostly of iron. 

In a presentation, the project’s architect, Philip Micallef, outlined how what is nowadays known as the outdoor dining section of the building was once an integrated and roofed-over part destroyed during World War 2. 

Now transformed into a modern dining hub, Micallef said that Arkadia had sought to install minimal but effective covering for the outdoor dining area, however, when the previously installed canopies were replaced by the existing ones in 2019 due to deterioration, this was slapped with an enforcement notice. 

In an effort for transparency, he continued, the applicants sought a full development permit and consulted extensively with stakeholders to create an outdoor cover for the area that is aesthetically pleasing. 

“We wanted to create something that isn’t kitsch and is complimentary of the existing building,” he said. 

The final design is a lattice that follows the grid layout of the building, with a lightweight retractable roof that can be opened depending on the weather conditions. 

In addressing the directorate’s reasons for refusal, Micallef said that, while the building is within an urban conservation area, the development being proposed is within the confines of an editing building which merited more than “a textbook exercise of transposing policy directly”. 

Policies, Micallef said, also have a degree of interpretation when it comes to work meant to improve a public building and in this case, in an area aimed at tourists, it would be providing clients with a better experience. 

He added that he believed that in this case, allowing umbrellas to be permissible rather than the proposed canopies is “not conducive to quality design” and would bring problems like pigeons and dirt. 

Ultimately, all of the members of the board voted in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation and refused the application.