Application to raise Valletta building to be decided Thursday

An application to demolish part of the facade, and raise the height of a Valletta building by around two storeys to be used as offices is proposed to be refused by the Planning Directorate, and a decision on the application is expected to be taken this week by the board.

This development application is to demolish the building, but retaining part of the facade and some other features, as well as to excavate basement level to accommodate a kitchen, and to construct shops at ground floor level and overlying offices from first floor up to seventh floor level.

The site is located on Strait Street Valletta. The existing five-storey high building is flanked with an office block for the judiciary and another building block.

The building consists of a former palazzo with origins dating to the late 16th century and various alterations carried out in the mid19th century. The Grand Harbour Local Plan designates the area as a primary town centre with a primary retail frontage.

The site is scheduled as an Area of High Landscape Value on the context of the harbour fortifications and is within an Urban Conservation Area.

The Courts of Justice by means of a letter, lodged an objection on the basis that the properties, forming part of the planning application, have been subject of a land acquisition order by virtue of Government Notice No 236 issued on the Government Gazette of April 28th 1989.

“In this regard there is a pending constitutional court case.”

The applicant confirmed that there is a pending constitutional case in relation to the properties subject to this planning application. A letter was received from an advocate on behalf of the applicant in reply to the letter of objection dated submitted by an architect on behalf of the Courts of Justice. The advocate stated that the title of ownership of the properties in question currently vests and has always vested with the applicant. “A Presidential Declaration for the acquisition of these properties was published in 1989, however the Declaration itself did not constitute a transfer of ownership from the applicant to Government. The law applicable at the time of publication of the said Declaration required that further steps be taken by the Government in order for ownership to be transferred. The advocate stated that these legal requirements however were never satisfied by Government with the consequence that ownership of the properties in question, remains, until today vested in the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, as rightful owner is entitled to develop these properties.

“The court’s letter also refers to the proceedings currently pending before the Constitutional Court, it must be noted in this regard that these proceedings were initiated for purposes of contesting the validity of the Declaration and the element of public interest. In fact, the issue of ownership is not a matter of contestation in these proceedings which in itself is proof of acknowledgment by Government that title to these properties rightly vests with the applicant. The Court therefore will be deciding in the proceedings on the validity of Declaration and will not make any determination on the issue of ownership.”

The Planning Authority sought legal advice on the matter, and were told that, if the applicant contests the issue of ownership, as it did, the Authority is to continue with the processing of the application, “if the applicant recognises that he is not the owner then the application cannot be processed further/refused.”

In terms of the building height, the Planning Directorate noted that the proposed development “will act as a good transition between the existing adjoining judiciary office block located on the left hand side and that as approved through another planning permit located on the right hand side.”

“The proposal will minimise the existing visual impact of the adjoining exposed party wall of the judiciary office block. Furthermore, the sixth and seventh floor levels are receded in order not to create a blank party wall. Given that the lift well could not be receded, its exposed party wall was treated. Therefore, the proposal conforms with SPED Urban Objectives 2.3 and 2.4 which requires that building heights in Urban Conservation Areas are to respect the height of the surrounding streetscape context in order to protect the traditional urban skyline. The proposed development will not have long-distance implications to the existing townscape's configuration. Furthermore, it will not impact the skyline.”

The application however proposes the demolition of part of the facade, and here-in lies the problem.

The case officer noted that the proposal runs counter to the condition 5 of prior outline application which required that the existing facade be retained and conserved, and incorporated in the new development, except for those alterations which are considered essential to expose the original features of the building.

“The proposed development would detract from the overall objectives of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development to improve the townscape and environment in historic cores and their setting.”

In addition, the proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Development Planning (Health and Sanitary) Regulations, 2016 since the overall height of the facade should not exceed 3 times the width of the street.