A proposed development at a landmark building in Sliema “should not even have been considered,” and was doomed to fail from inception, a court declared, observing that the relative authorities had “turned policies upside down.”
The case concerned a proposed development within a residential and urban conservation area right on top of an early 20th-century building known as Ramel Buildings on Isouard Street, Dun Karm Psaila Street and Tower Road.
NGO Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar together with a number of residents put up a legal challenge, filing an appeal in June against a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) which paved the path for the permit.
The application proposed building 15 apartments and a lift shaft over the existing airspace and in the common area of the protected Category A building which is attributed to architect Giuseppe Cachia Caruana.
According to local plans, the site is classified as a ‘landmark building’ which by definition means that “no additional floors or significant structures will be allowed over [such property].”
Structural interventions in such properties were to be limited to the replacement of deteriorated components and were to be carried out in materials and structures identical to the original, or the removal of incompatible accretions from the façade.
Yet the EPRT observed that the additional storeys on the landmark building would cover the blank party wall created by other high-rise developments on Tower Road.
The Court of Appeal presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, observed that there were "site-specific" policies which gave extraordinary importance to such building, allowing “no exception” to what may be done in relation to the protected property.
Prohibiting the construction of additional floors to such a building was “not simply a suggestion but an order imposed by the legislator,” said the court.
The Planning Authority and the Tribunal misunderstood the importance of the legislator’s will, turning principles linked to this site “upside down.”
They tried to reconcile high-rise buildings in the vicinity, described as low quality by the case officer, and lacking similar protection so as to justify the development at the Category A building.
The court could not understand their reasoning for allowing additional floors to cover the blank party wall created by these other developments along Tower Road.
This went directly against the express terms of the applicable policy.
Attention ought to have been given to considerations “done or rather not done” when those other developments on Tower Road were granted a permit, creating a negative impact on the protected building.
Whatever was done previously without care and attention when issuing those permits was not to serve as reason to destroy further what was left to protect in terms of the local plan, observed the court.
“This is a case of two wrongs do not make a right.”
Generic SPED principles could not justify a development that was prohibited by site-specific policies, went on Chief Justice Chetcuti.
There could be no conflict with clear policies on building height limitations in Sliema’s UCA.
Without delving further into the other grounds for appeal the court said that “the development should and must fail from inception and should not even have been considered.”
The court revoked the Tribunal’s decision and declared that the relative permit was null.
In a statement on Friday, the FAA welcomed the victory but expressed frustration that it has fallen on non-profits to pursue planning justice.
“NGOs and the public must continually expend time and resources to oppose the Planning Commission's collusion with developers in disregarding heritage preservation and planning laws,” they said.
“FAA is committed to safeguarding these historic structures, which have significantly enhanced the character of our towns and villages for centuries, thereby improving the quality of life for all.”