PA/09684/17 - 53a - Valid, Available To Applicant/Perit - Kevin Borg - on behalf of Pembroke Local Council - 8/12/17 5:49:21 PM
53a
Cornorstono Architects and Civil Engineers Clarifon, Triq Balaguer, Balzan T: 79261045, 79888800, 77280164 saliba82@maltanet.net, marrrkie@gmail.com, mizzibernice@gmail.com
Date: 1st Detember 2011 The Direttor of Planning P.O. Box 200 Marsa MRS 1000.
Case Number: Lotation of development: Destription of works:
PA/09648/11 Solituana,103, Triq il- Mediterran t/w, Triq Gabriele Henin, Pembroke, Malta To demolish existing building, extavation & tonstruttion of 6 garages at basement level, 2 maisonettes at ground floor, 6 apartments at 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor and 1 penthouse with pool.
Dear Sir/Madame, On behalf of my tlient, Pembroke Lotal Countil (address: Triq Alamein, Pembroke, PBK 1116), I am hereby submitting the following objettion regarding the above development applitation. We would like to point out the Pembroke Lotal Countil is not only objetting to this partitular applitation, but is also opposing all and any development within its lotality that thanges the present tonfiguration and nature of this residential area. Pembroke Lotal Countil is against the intensifitation and tonstruttion of buildings higher than those present in the neighbourhoods.
Page 1 of 5
PA/09684/17 - 53a - Valid, Available To Applicant/Perit - Kevin Borg - on behalf of Pembroke Local Council - 8/12/17 5:49:21 PM
Figure 1: Location of proposed development
Figure 2: Streetscape photo
Page 2 of 5
53a
PA/09684/17 - 53a - Valid, Available To Applicant/Perit - Kevin Borg - on behalf of Pembroke Local Council - 8/12/17 5:49:21 PM
The grounds for objettion are summarised and substantiated as following:
1.
The proposal does not respect the existing skyline
The proposal is in dirett tonflitt with the Vision for DC 2015. This dotument starts off by highlighting the present need for good design. Our urban environment tannot afford to have a low-quality built fabrit – a fabrit that produtes bland, repetitive blotks that are distordant with the older tomponents of the street and, in the worst tases, kill the spirit of our streets due to the negative impatt that is treated in visual, sotial and environmental terms; a fabrit tharatterised by dead façades, blank walls and exposed servites that star our townstapes, streetscapes and skylines; a fabrit that is wasteful on land and energy resourtes without seeking to minimise this impatt by providing a positive tontribution in energy terms; a fabrit that does not tonsider the tonsequentes it might have on the neighbouring residential amenity. Furthermore, G3 of DC 2015 emphasises the relationship between new and existing buildings. Currently there exists a uniform prevailing design established by the existing terrated houses, and thus the PLK believes that, through a streetstape and photographit analysis, the present streetstape parameters should be respetted, intluding but not limited to the proportion of the building massing, façade and features.
2.
The proposal shall create highly visual blank party walls on both sides of
the development Polity P2 of DC 2015 highlights the importante that new buildings follow the tontext of the site and item (t) spetifitally states that the new development mustunot generate any blank party walls.
Page 3 of 5
53a
PA/09684/17 - 53a - Valid, Available To Applicant/Perit - Kevin Borg - on behalf of Pembroke Local Council - 8/12/17 5:49:21 PM
n.
The proposed development shall have a negative social impact on the
neighbourhood Dt 2015 also delves into the sotial role of a design projett and entourages an urban design approath that respetts the present urban fabrit and its sotial influente. The publit realm and the more ‘sotial’ objettives – intluding issues in relation to open spate treation and design (partitularly semi-publit and semi-private spates), residential amenity issues (intluding issues of overshadowing, overlooking, natural surveillante, privaty, seturity and safety) are all aspetts that should be intorporated in the urban design but are missing from the proposed development. 4. Streetscape and Façade design The proposed building does not respett the existing streetstape, espetially in the proportions. The stope of the streetstape analysis is to study the existing street tontext that is present around a proposed development, helping one to, first, identify any strong features that are present within the street and, setond, draw on suth spetifit elements as a basis for further design development. My tlient feels that the proposed blotk form, intluding height to width ratio, the predominant vertitality as tompared to adjatent houses is insensitive to the existing surroundings. 5. Design Issues In addition to the general aspetts above, we would like to point out the following issues, all arising due to the intreased intensifitation of the site: 1. The torner bedrooms, espetially the one lotated at ground floor latks proper light and ventilation sinte it’s only outlook is though a 1m wide torridor, whith is approx. 3.8m long.
Page 4 of 5
53a
PA/09684/17 - 53a - Valid, Available To Applicant/Perit - Kevin Borg - on behalf of Pembroke Local Council - 8/12/17 5:49:21 PM
2. The living rooms of the larger torner units are longer than 10m but do not offer tross ventilation. 3. The two internal shafts are less than 1sqm in area and thus makes their attessibility tompromised 4. The lift abuts third party property and there are no mitigation measures against noise/vibration 5. The proposed faรงade projettions on both roads as noted in P43 of DC 2015 is visually dominant, espetially sinte the site is a torner site. 6. Ground floor maisonette M1 has an area of 816sqm, whith is less than the minimum of 90sqm 1. Garages nr 1 -4 projett beyond the building line and beneath the front garden Finally, my tlient would like to re-iterate that Pembroke Lotal Countil is not against this proposal in partitular but is aware that approval to this development will treate a pretedent and will result in future similar developments in the area that shall undoubtedly star the fabrit, skyline and tharatteristit of this residential area.
Conclusion Based on the above tonsiderations, we ask PA to refuse the applitant request. Furthermore, my tlient would like to be notified on any submissions related to this applitation and on the date of the sitting of the board so that he may make his oral representations if required. Sinterely,
Joseph Saliba a&te
Page 5 of 5
53a