Windsor Terrace development
I refer to recent coverage which The Times has given to an approved outline development in Windsor Terrace in Sliema. The DCC Division C members feel aggrieved by contents of the audit officer's report, in view of several serious inaccuracies which it...
I refer to recent coverage which The Times has given to an approved outline development in Windsor Terrace in Sliema. The DCC Division C members feel aggrieved by contents of the audit officer's report, in view of several serious inaccuracies which it contains. For this reason they are adding their signature to this communication.
The approval was not, as alleged, of a six-storey apartment block. Such a proposal was refused by the DCC. At reconsideration stage, the DCC requested the architect to submit fresh plans addressing the reasons for refusal, namely demolition and height of the development. The architect's revised proposal included the retention of the façade with the exception of the introduction of a garage door, and the addition of two floors.
The DCC decided to carry out a site inspection before deciding on the revised proposal. The application was to be determined in the light of the existing site commitments and other developments that had been recently approved in the area. The photo that appeared above the letter Height Limitations (January 24, page 10) shows the immediate context of the site.
The DCC eventually approved the outline application since, contrary to allegations by the audit officer, it considered that the original reasons for refusal had been addressed, as duly recorded in the minutes of the file. The DCC did not, therefore, as suggested in the report, simply change its mind on the same proposal a year after refusing it. The approved scheme represented a complete departure from the original proposal.
It is to be noted that the application was decided on July 18, 2006, before the ministerial endorsement of the local plans, when acceptable building heights were assessed on the basis of predominant heights in the streetscape since both the temporary provision schemes and the draft local plan did not impose a height limitation on the area. The DCC was not in a position to predict when the local plans were to come into force.
In a democracy opinion is free. Honesty and integrity however demands that opinion is formed on hard fact which stands up to the light of scrutiny. In this case particularly, the DCC decisions fell under this scrutiny and the facts support it entirely.
When considering all this, the members of the DCC feel that the accusations levelled at them are unfounded.