Outline permit for 250-year-old garden by Trevor Mercieca

Membri: Avukat Dott. Robert Tufigno LL.D. Perit Patrick Camilleri B.E & A.(Hons) A. & C.E. Perit Albert Borg Costanzi B. Arch., A. & C.E. PAB 29/10 RT. PA 1066/04. Mary Paris kontra l-Awtorita' ta' Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar. Illum, 22 ta' Settembru, 2011. Il-Bord, Ra l-appell ipprezentat fit-12 ta' Frar 2010, mill-Perit Dr. Edwin Mintoff, f'isem l-appellanti, minn rifjut mahrug mill-Kummissjoni ghall-Kontrol ta' l-Izvilupp, fi stadju ta' rikonsiderazzjoni u li jgib id-data tal-15 ta' Jannar 2010. Sema' lill-Perit Dr. Edwin Mintoff u lill-Avukat Dr. Joanne Vella Cuschieri ghall-Appellanti. Sema' lil Mario Scicluna u lil Gordon Schembri ghall-Awtorita' u fis-seduta tal-15 ta Dicembru 2010 ddifera l-appell ghad-decizjoni u ta' lill-partijiet zmien li jaghmlu sottomissjonijiet bil-miktub. Minhabba li kien hemm bdil fil-komposizzjoni tal-Bord, il-Bord hass illi jkun utili li f'dan il-kaz il-membru gdid, u cioe il-Perit Albert Borg Costanzi, bhal membri l-ohra, jkun ra s-sit in kwistjoni. Ghalhekk il-Bord iffissa access li effettivament sar fl-4 ta' Lulju 2011. Waqt l-access l-Awtorita' ddikjarat illi kienet qed tirrizerva l-posizzjoni taghha dwar il-gurizdizzjoni ta' dan il-Bord in vista tal-Avviz Legali 27 tal-2011. Il-Bord a skans ta' ekwivoku sejjer jikkunsidra dan il-punt sollevat mill-Awtorita'.

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 1 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

Ir-regolament 2 tal-imsemmi Avviz Legali jipprovdi li dan il-Bord ghandu "jittratta dawk l-appelli pendenti quiddiemu u li qabel il-31 ta' Dicembru 2010, kienu diga differiti mill-istess Bord ghal-Decizjoni". Illi dan l-appell qabel il-31 ta' Dicembru 2010 kien gie differit ghal-decizjoni. Ladarba dan hu minnu, dan il-Bord ghadu jista' jittratta l-istess appell. Il-Bord jifhem li bil-kelma "jittratta" l-Avviz Legali qed ifisser li dan il-Bord jista' jkompli jikkunsidra l-Appell sabiex jasal ghal-decizjoni dwaru. Fil-fatt, f'dan il-kaz, bhal ma gara f'appelli ohra, dan il-Bord wara li ddifferexxi l-appell ghal-decizjoni ra s-sottomissjonijiet tal-partijiet skond l-istess verbal tal-15 ta' Dicembru 2010. Ghalhekk, jekk il-Bord hass il-htiega li jaghmel access gdid, dan ma jesawtorahx mill-gurizdizzjoni tieghu u ghalhekk jista' jghaddi ghal decizjoni. Dan ikun ukoll fl-ahjar ekonomija tal-gudizzju. Ghalhekk dan il-Bord qed jiddeciedi li hu ghandu gurizdizzjoni jkompli jittratta dan l-appell u jiddecidieh. Il-Bord issa qed jikkunsidra l-mertu tal-Appell. Ikkunsidra:Illi l-appellant issottometta "Outline Development Application" fejn talab permess ta' l-izvilupp ghal bini ta' "Residential units with garages for private use" u dan fuq sit fi Triq il-Hatem, Hal-Ghaxaq. Din it-talba giet michuda mill-Kummissjoni ghall-Kontroll ta' l-Izvilupp ghas-segwenti raguni:"1. The proposal seeks to develop a private garden as designated in the South Malta Local, (Plan), Map GH1 which MEPA considers to be of a cultural, historical and architectural value that merits scheduling. In this regard this proposed development is unacceptable and runs counter South Malta Local Plan policy SMIA 10 which safeguard(s) the protection of private gardens." Ra l-appell ipprezentat mill-Perit Dr Edwin Mintoff ghall-appellanta li jaqra kif gej:"I write on behalf of my client Mrs. Mary Parnis with reference to the refusal of the above-mentioned application by the DCC, to request the Appeals Board to reverse the decision of the DCC. Please note that the lawyer of my client as well as myself would like to be present during the deliberation of the appeals. The main reason for the refusal is the following: The proposal seeks to develop a private garden as designated in the South Malta Local Map GH1, which MEPA considers to be of a cultural, historical and architectural value that merits scheduling. In this regard this proposed development

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 2 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

is unacceptable and runs counter South Malta Local Plan Policy SMIA 10 which safeguard the protection of private gardens. Although the development is not physically connected to the existing villa, the proposed development will be enhancing the villa. The proposal is a conversion scheme with a final aim to bring the dilapidated state of the old villa back into use. A large portiion of the garden adjacent to the villa will not form part of the proposed development keeping the area in its present state. Therefore the concept of a typical garden forming part of a historical villa mentioned by the Heritage Advisory Committe (HAC) will be retained. Moreover, this requisite of retaining a large area of the garden adjacent to the Villa will not compromise the garden/villa connection mentioned by the Integrated Heritage Management (IHM). Another point that needs to be stressed out and that was always mentioned in our correspondence, is that the uncontrolled development around the northern part of the garden has led to a dilapidation of the aesthetic and architectural value of the garden. Furthermore, the most valuable heritage to preserve in this mentioned garden is the trees and plants. Unpredictably, the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee (NHAC) has found no objection for these trees to be removed apart from protecting some of the trees and which are to be integrated with the development to which client finds no objection." Ra r-risposta ta' l-Awtorita prezentata fil-5 ta' Marzu li taqra: "1.0

THE PROPOSAL

This Outline Development Permit application seeks consent for the construction of residential units and underlying garages. The proposed development will be built on 3 levels having its main faรงade at Triq il-Hatem. Each level is to include 18 residential units each. No drawings have been submitted with regards to the garage level layout. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & SITE HISTORY The site forms part of existing villa dating back to the British Occupation period, and it is estimated to be 250 years old. The villa is better known as Palazzo Giannini. The large garden where the development is being proposed contains several trees, of which some are of great age. The area is surrounded by terraced houses development. According to the approved

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 3 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

South Malta Local Plan (SMLP) the surrounding area is designated for the development of terraced houses with a height limitation of 3 floors and a penthouse level. No previous applications traced on this site. 3.0

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

3.1 A refusal was issued on the 6th May 2008, and a request for reconsideration was refused on the 15th January 2010 for the following reason: 1.This proposal seeks to develop a private garden as designated in the South Malta Local mapGH1 which MEPA considers to be of a cultural, historical and architectural value that merits scheduling. In this regard this proposed development is unacceptable and runs counter South Malta Local Plan policy SMIA 10 which safeguard the protection of private gardens. 4.0

POLICY CONTEXT

4.1

Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands (December 1990)

BEN 1: "The development will not normally be permitted if the proposal is likely to have a deleterious impact on existing or planned adjacent uses..." BEN 2: "Development will not normally be permitted if it is incompatible with the good urban design, natural heritage, and environmental characteristics of existing or planned adjacent uses, and is not likely to maintain the good visual integrity of the area in which it is located..." TRA 2: promoters of major developments will be required to prepare traffic impact statements illustrating the likely impact of the proposal on the road network. TRA 4: "The following vehicle parking principles will be adopted in different areas for new development: 3. Rest of Malta : accommodating standards for all developments. BEN 4 & SET 8: Comprehensive review of the Temporary Provisions Schemes through the Local Plan medium. 4.2 South Malta Local Plan - SMIA 10 Protection of Private Gardens and Open Space Enclaves in UCAs

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 4 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

In the private gardens and open space enclaves, as indicated on the relevant Policy Maps, MEPA will not consider any new development or redevelopment proposals that create independent residential/non-residential units, including garages for the parking of vehicles. In the identified private gardens and open space enclaves, development proposals will be considered if they: i. Constitute an extension to an existing building aimed at increasing the amenity and enjoyment of the property; or ii. Form part of a conversion scheme aimed at bringing a disused or dilapidated building back into use, even if such a scheme will create new residential/non-residential units; or iii. Involve solely the construction or enlargement of a swimming pool together with its ancillary reservoir, pump room and paving or hard surfacing around the pool or such development if linked to (i) and (ii) above. In addition, the development proposals listed above will be considered provided that ALL the following conditions are abided to: a. the extensions under (i) and (ii) are physically attached with the existing main building and form an integral part of the main building; b. a plot depth of 25 m from the street frontage is allowed; c. the scale, bulk and design of the extensions under (i) and (ii), do not compromise the openness of the enclave and the architectural integrity of the existing building; d. the design, materials and colours of the swimming pool and paving are compatible with the character of the enclave; e. the take up of soil or planted areas, irrespective of the existing condition of such areas, for the development permitted under (i), (ii) and (iii) above, should be minimal and in no case exceed 15% of the total soil and planted areas (but still within the 25 m plot depth); f. they do not adversely affect existing features which are worthy of retention, including tall/mature trees (such as oaks, conifers or palms), but consideration may be given in exceptional cases to the relocation of such features within the same open space provided the existing location is not an intrinsic part of the character of the open space and the relocation will not result in the destruction or serious alterations of the same feature. Development proposals in private gardens or those parts of the open space enclaves, which are scheduled or are part of a scheduled building, will be controlled by the Legal Notice giving statutory standing to such scheduling, together with all other policies relevant to such scheduling. Within those private gardens, indicated in the relevant Policy Maps as Private Gardens Meriting Protection, which either form part of buildings of cultural, historical or architectural value or which merit scheduling, and which have been zoned for terraced house development in the Temporary Provision Schemes 1988, MEPA will consider development proposals ONLY after an assessment of the garden is carried out to the satisfaction of MEPA, to determine the importance and value of the garden and its features and whether development may be permitted.

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 5 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

Should some level of development be permitted MEPA will prepare development planning and design parameters to guide the development of the site in question, primarily in terms of site coverage, massing, landscaping, building heights, building design elements, etc. The provisions of Part B paras 2 and 3 of the Development Control within UCAs Design Guidance of 1995 are being replaced by this policy for the identified private gardens and open space enclaves. 5.0

COMMENTS ON APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

5.1 The Authority has noted the arguments as brought forward in appellant’s request for appeal and shall address these issues hereunder: 5.1.1 In this request for appeal, appellant is stating that this request for development is justified in view that the proposal could be considered as a conversion scheme which will enhance the villa’s character. 5.1.2 However, after noting all of appellant’s arguments as presented in this request for appeal the Authority disagrees with these justifications and states that the proposed development of this garden is an extensive urban development which will eliminate the garden and be transformed onto a residential project which cannot be considered as respecting the character of the historical villa. 5.2 While it is correct that the NHAC remarked that many of the existing trees could be removed, it is important to note that both the HAC and the IHM have objected strongly to the proposed transformation of the existing garden since the new blocks of flats would definitely alter negatively the character of the historic villa and would not contribute to its enhancement. In fact, their comments include:  Proposal not acceptable since this will compromise the garden/villa connection  Development will compromise the visual integrity of the UCA  UCA’s character will be significantly impaired since the site is in the periphery of the UCA  Proposed development is very intensive, resulting in a negative impact on parking and traffic in the vicinity. 5.2.1 During the processing of this application, a fresh proposal had been submitted as per drg. Red 26B which proposed 6 blocks of flats with a height which range from 2 to 5 floors. The Directorate took note of this new layout and commented that the proposal has been an improvement to the original submission. However, the main issue remained whether the concept had to be acceptable in principle or not. 5.2.2 Through consultations with the Local Planning Unit, it was confirmed that the approved South Malta Local Plan, as indicated in map GH1 designates the site as a

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 6 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

private garden which merits protection. 5.2.3 It is very important to note that from a cultural and heritage point of view it has been indicated that no development should be permitted within the site in question. Moreover, CHAC stated that discussions are underway whether the garden in question should be scheduled due to its historic and architectural importance. 5.2.4 Moreover, according to the SMLP Map GH1, site is designated as a private garden meriting protection as per policy SMIA10. The latter states that: “Within those private gardens, indicated in the relevant Policy Maps as Private Gardens Meriting Protection, which either form part of buildings of cultural, historical or architectural value or which merit scheduling, and which have been zoned for terraced house development in the Temporary Provision Schemes 1988, MEPA will consider development proposals ONLY after an assessment of the garden is carried out to the satisfaction of MEPA…” Such assessment has been completed by MEPA’s representees, being the IHM, NHAC and CHAC. As indicated above, the latter concluded that the garden is to remain free form any development. Thus none of the proposed works can in fact be permitted within this garden. 5.2.5 Furthermore, a closer analysis of Policy SMIA 10 clearly shows that the only construction works allowable in such gardens are limited to extensions to the existing villa which are genuinely needed to render the existing building more habitable and would thus render the existing building more habitable (thus protected) in the long term. However, latest plan Red 26B clearly shows that the construction of the new block of flats are not intended to safeguard / enhance the existing villa but is a form or urban sprawl in a large garden which has been specifically identified and designated by the South Malta Local Plan as meriting protection and subject to a specific policy (SMIA 10) which sets clear guidelines as to the type of development (very limited) which could be permitted in such distinctive and historical gardens. 5.2.6 Conclusively, the Authority states that whilst taking note of appellant’s arguments in this request for appeal, the Authority notes that there are no sound planning justifications which could justify a breach to the above cited policies. Hence, reference is made to the reports as presented by the Directorate and to the DCC’s decision which dismissed this request for development since the DCC Board had based their decision on the valid relevant policies applicable to this area. Reference is also made to the detailed reports as included in the file and to the submissions (verbal and written) which will be presented during the appeals sittings. 5.3 MEPA therefore reiterates that it acknowledges and confirms that the reasons for refusal can be justified on sound planning considerations which took into consideration all the relevant facts, planning policies, legislation and submissions as required by article 33/1 of Chapter 356 of the Laws of Malta, and thus, respectfully

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 7 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

requests the Planning Appeals Board to confirm the decision of the Development Control Commission and to refuse this appeal. The Authority reserves the right to forward further submissions during the appeals process as necessary." Ra il-file PA1066/04. Ra il-Policies tal-Pjan ta' Struttura BEN 1, BEN 2, BEN 4, TRA 2 u TRA 4. Ikkunsidra illi it-talba ta' l-Appellanta hija sabiex jinhareg Permess ta' l-izvilupp, (tat-tip "Outline" ghal binja ta' 3 sulari b'18 l-appartament residenzjali fuq kull sular. Il-proposta kienet tinkludi wkoll garaxxi sovrastanti. Is-sit in kwistjoni illum tifforma gnien ta' villa li nbniet xi mitejn u hamsin sena ilu u li fil-Pjan Lokali hija indikata bhala "Private Garden meriting protection â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Policy SMIA 10". Mill-pjanti sottometti fil-file PA 1066/04 il-Bord seta' jikkonstata illi l-gnien kien twil bejn wiehed u iehor 90 metru u wiesa' xi 45 metru. Fit-3 ta' Novembru 2004, (u cioe fiz-zmien meta d-Direttorat kien ghadu qed jiprocessa l-aplikazzjoni), il-Perit Mintoff kien issotometta pjanta gdida li kienet turi zvilupp li kien anqas intensiv minn dak muri fil-pjanti originali. Hija l-proposta murija f'din il-pjanta, (Red 26b fil-file PA1066/04), li giet ikkunsidrata mill-Kummisjoni ghal-Kontrol ta' l-Izvilupp u li hija s-soggett tar-rifjut in kwistoni. Il-Perit Mintoff spjega kif, avolja l-Appellanti kienet qed tipproponi illi l-parti l-kbira ta' dan il-gnien jigi zviluppat, xorta wahda kienet qed tipproponi illi parti sostanzjali tinzam annessa mal-villa l-antika sabiex din ta' l-ahhar ma titlifx il-kuntest storiku taghha. Huwa sostna illi l-izvilupp, kwazi bla kontroll, tal-propjetajiet li kienu jmissu man-naha tat-tramuntana tal-gnien kien wassal sabiex il-valur estetiku u arkitettoniku tal-gnien jintilef. Huwa gibed l-attenzjoni tal-Bord ghal fatt illi l-Natural Heritage Advisory Committee ma sabet ebda oggezzjoni ghal l-izvilupp propost. Dan il-fatt gie kkonfermat mill-Awtorita' fir-rapport taghha izda hija nnutat illi kemm il-Heritage Advisory Committee kif ukoll mill-IHM, (Integrated Heritage Management), it-tnejn oggezzjonaw ghal dan l-Izvilupp. Ir-raguni ghar-rifjut tikkoncerna l-fatt illi l-gnien in kwistjoni gie identifikat fil-Pjan Lokali (Map GH1), bhala Private Garden meriting Protection; (Policy SMIA10). Din il-Policy kkwotata mill-MEPA, hija restrittiva hafna u fil-fatt tibda billi tghid: "In the private gardens and open space enclaves, as indicated on the relevant Policy Maps, MEPA will not consider any new development or redevelopment proposals that create independent residential/ non-residential units, including garages for the parking of vehicles".

Report Printed On: 30 October 2011 21:53

Report Page: 8 of 10PAB 29/10 RT

Din il-Policy tkompli billi telenka numru ta' restrizzjonijiet ohra fuq zvilupp f' dan it-tip ta' sit. Il-Bord innota izda illi l-Policy tghid ukoll: "Within those private gardens, indicated in the relevant Policy Maps as Private Gardens Meriting Protection which either form part of buildings of cultural, historical or architectural value or which merit scheduling and which have been zoned for terraced house development in the Temporary Provision Schemes 1988, MEPA will consider development proposals ONLY after an assessment of the garden is carried out the satisfaction of MEPA, to determine the importance and value of the garden and its features and whether development may be permitted. Should some level of development be permitted MEPA will prepare development planning and design parameters to guide the development of the site in question, primarily in terms of site coverage, massing, landscaping, building heights, building design elements, etc:" Il-Bord ra t-Temporary Provision Schemes ghal-Hal Ghaxaq u Bir id-Deheb u sab illi l-parti tal-gnien li thares lejn in-nofs in-nhar kienet indikata bhala zviluppabli ghal-terraced houses. Il-Bord, ikkunsidra dan kollu u wasal ghal konkluzjoni illi l-izvilupp propost mill-Appellanta jidher li huwa eccessiv u ghalhekk jordna li l-izvilupp jigi limitat ghal mhux aktar minn tletin unit rezidenzjali li ghandhom jigu mqassma fi tlett blokki izolati minn kull bini adjacenti. L-gholi ta' l-istess blokki ghandha tigi limitata sa tlett sulari l-fuq mit-Triq tal-Hatem, u dan barra l-gholi tal-"penthouses." Il-Bord ukoll irid li l-bankina prezenti fuq Triq il-Hatem tibqa u li l-blokki ikunu "set-back" minn Triq il-Haten u mhux fl-linja wahda dritta. Il-Bord jordna illi l-ispazji bejn Triq il-Hatem u l-blokki ghandu jibqa bhala gnien. L-assi tal-gnien prezenti ghandu ghal-parti l-kbira minn naha tal-bini Palazzo Giannini ghandha tkun rispettata, ghal-tul sostanzjali u l-gnien ma genb il-Palazzo Giannini b'hekk ikun akbar. Ghalhekk b'din id-decizjoni l-interessi kemm ta' l-appellanti, tal-wirt storiku kif ukoll tal-publiku in generali ikun salvagwardati. Ghal dawn il-motivi, il-Bord jilqa' dan l-appell, ghal bini ta' Residential units with garages for private use jhassar ir-rifut tal-permess ghall-izvilupp u jordna lis-Segretarja tal-Kummissjoni ta' l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar sabiex tohrog il-permess tat-tip "Outline" fi zmien tletin mill-llum. B'dan illi is-segwenti, (sakem mhux gja determinati minn dan il-Bord f'din id-decizjoni), ghandhom jittqiesu "reserved matters" u ghandhom jigu ttrattati f'Full Development Application: a)