second refusal for ghaxaq palazzo gardens development

Case Number: PA/01066/04Report Name: DPA Reconsideration Report

Report Printed On: 17 November 2011 22:06Report Page: 1 of 7

--- REPRESENTATIONS ---

Local Council submitted an objection letter as per Red11.



--- NOTES TO COMMITTEE ---

1 - Representors have requested prior notification and wish to attend the meeting of theDCC at which this application is to be determined.

1 - The original decision was based on plans Red 1B. The assessment of thisreconsideration report is based on the same drawings.

2 - In letter dated 31st October, 2008 (Red 65) the architect submitted comments on theDPARR.

The Directorate retains the comments made in DPARR.

2 - The architect's response to the Development Planning Application Report wassubmitted on 1st April 2008.

3 - Site Inspection held on 18 November 2009Board inspected site and considered proposal objectionable.



--- CASE OFFICER REPORT ---

1.0 Proposal:

1.1 The proposal is for an Outline Development Permit to construct residentialunits and underlying garages. The propose development will be built on threelevels having its main façade at Triq il-Hatem. Each level is to include 18residential units each. No drawings have been submitted with regards to thegarage level layout.

2.0 Site:

2.1 The site consists of an old villa dating back to the British Occupancy period,and is estimated to the 250 years old. The proposed development will be builton three levels having its main façade at Triq il-Hatem. Each level is to include18 residential units each. No drawings have been submitted with regards tothe garage level layout.

3.0 Site History:

3.1 No previous permit applications were traced to the site in concern.

4.0 Consultations:

4.1 Internal ConsultationsHeritage Advisory Committee - The HAC conducted a site in section andstated that the garden where the proposed development is being consideredforms part of a very old building, namely Palazzo Giannin. After variousmeetings and assessments, the committee concluded that the garden shouldnot be developed since it is a typical garden which forms part of an historicvilla, which subsequently needs to be protected from any type of development.Moreover, the HAC recommends that both the IHM & NHAC be consulted.

Integrated Heritage Management - The IHM recommended that the proposalshould not be accepted as it will compromise the garden/villa connection, andthat the development will also compromise the visual integrity of the UCA. Theproposed development is very intensive and will result in a negative impact onparking and traffic in the vicinity.

Natural Heritage Advisory Committee - The NHAC stated that there is noobjection to the proposed Outline Application on grounds of natural heritage,and made several comments on the vegetation present in the garden.

4.2 External ConsultationsNo external consultations were carried out during the processing stages of thisdevelopment permit application.

5.0 Constraints & Policy Context:

5.1 Site Constraints



Approved South Malta Local Plan:Policy SMIA 10 - Protection of Private Gardens and Open Space Enclavesin UCAs.

5.2 Planning and Environmental Policy ContextStructure Plan for the Maltese Islands (December 1990).

Policy and Design Guidance 2000.



6.0 Original Decision:

6.1 The proposal was refused by DCC on the 6th May, 2008, as per DecisionNotice Red 57 in file following DPA report Blue 51.

7.0 Reconsideration Request:

7.1 In letter dated 30th November, 2006 in file (Red 36), applicant is requesting areconsideration of the proposal.

8.0 Reasons for Refusal:

8.1 The proposal seeks to develop a private garden as designated inSMLP Map GH 1, which MEPA considers to be of a cultural, historicaland architectural value that merits scheduling. In this regard, thisdevelopment is unacceptable and runs counter to SMLP policy SMIA10, which safeguard the protection of private gardens.

9.0 Applicant’s Arguments for Reconsideration:

9.1 Although the development is not physically connected to the existingvilla, the proposed development will be enhancing the villa. Theproposal is a conversion scheme with a final aim to bring thedilapidated state of the old villa back to use. A large portion of thegarden adjacent to the villa will not form part of the proposeddevelopment, thus keeping the area in its present state.

Therefore the idea of a typical garden forming part of the historicalvilla mentioned by the HAC will be retained. This idea of retaining alarge area of the garden adjacent to the villa will not compromise thegarden/villa connection mentioned by the IHM.

The uncontrolled development around the northern part of the gardenhas led to a dilapidation of the aesthetic and architectural value of thegarden.

The most valuable heritage to keep in this mentioned garden is thetrees and plans. Unpredictably, the NHAC has found no objection forthese trees to be removed apart from protecting some of the trees



and which are to be integrated with the development to which theapplicant finds no objection.

10.0 Directorate’s Comments for Reconsideration:

10.1

10.2

In comments for reconsideration, the applicant is stating that the works will notdisrupt the connection between the garden and the villa as a large portion ofthe garden will not be developed, but in fact preserved. In truth, the applicantis highlighting how the uncontrolled development around the northern part ofthe garden which is leading to a dilapidation of the aesthetic and architecturalvalue of the garden. Notwithstanding this, these issues are identical tocomments made by the architect following the DPA Report (Red 50 dated 25thMarch, 2008), have already been addressed to the Board as Notes toCommittee, and thus concluded at first decision.

Proposed Development

The original proposal as submitted was not acceptable from a planning anddesign point of view. This proposal was a normal conventional development inwhich it did not respect the urban context of the area.Through various discussions and a site inspection, the Planning Directoraterecommended the following planning and design parameters:

The proposal should integrate with the existing Palazzo The site coverage should be reduced The proposal should provide permeability The massing and height should reflect the urban core character The protected trees mainly those adjacent to the villa should be kept Adequate buffer from the Palazzo should be kept The axiality of the garden should be respected

An amended proposal has been submitted as per drawing red26C. Theproposal has been an improvement to the original submission. However, themain issue has been whether the concept had to be acceptable in principle.Through consultations with the Local Planning Unit, it has been indicated thatthe development of the site in question will prejudice the emerging Local Plan.In fact, the approved South Malta Local Plan, as indicated in mapGH1designstes the site as a private garden which merits protection. Howeverthe policy gives space to a certain development proposal only after anadequate assessment of the garden is carried out to the satisfaction of MEPA.

It is very important to note that from a cultural and heritage point of view it hasbeen indicated that no development should be permitted within the site inquestion. Moreover, CHAC stated that discussions are underway whether thegarden in question should be scheduled due to its historic and architecturalimportance.

In principle, from a natural heritage point of view there is no objection inprinciple for the development of this garden. Though some indicate trees (ashas been also recommended by the Planning Directorate) should be protected



and integrated within the development.

According to the SMLP map GH1, site is designated as a private gardenmeriting protection as per policy SMIA10. The latter states that: “Within thoseprivate gardens, indicated in the relevant Policy Maps as Private GardensMeriting Protection, which either form part of buildings of cultural, historical orarchitectural value or which merit scheduling, and which have been zoned forterraced house development in the Temporary Provision Schemes 1988,MEPA will consider development proposals ONLY after an assessment of thegarden is carried out to the satisfaction of MEPA…”

Such assessment has been completed by MEPA’s representees, being theIHM, NHAC and CHAC. As indicated above, the latter concluded that thehere-discussed garden shall remain free form any development.

11.0 Conclusion:

11.1 Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the Directorate feels therequest for this reconsideration is Dismissed and retain the original decision.



Recommendation is not available

1 - This proposal seeks to develope a private garden as designated in the South MaltaLocal mapGH1 which MEPA considers to be of a cultural, historical and architecuralvalue that merits scheduling. In this regard this proposed development is unacceptableand runs counter South Malta Local Plan policy SMIA 10 which safeguard the protectionof private gardens.

second refusal for ghaxaq palazzo gardens development

Documents