|
Fighting for their basic rights, the residents residing at ‘Les Roches’ apartments in Qui-Si-Sana have been finally vindicated after years of neglect by the authorities. On Tuesday 20 July, the Development Control Commission at MEPA exposed all the facts and refused to issue a permit after a unanimous vote. The refusal was effected on the reconsideration of the already refused application for Mamma Mia restaurant.
When they bought their high value properties along the Qui-Si-Sana seafront in Sliema in 1991, little did the residents know of the problems they would face from the owner of the ground floor shop. The residents have been struggling for their rights for more than eight years when Andrea’s Supermarket was changed into a restaurant in 1996 without a permit.
The problems grew when a licence was issued by HCEB (now MTA) for the restaurant to operate. HCEB neither had to power, authority or competence to decide on change of uses. HCEB only issued licences after a MEPA (then PA) permit was issued for the requested use. This issue was also confirmed and condemned by the DCC.
After many complaints and reports to all authorities, a letter of complaint was sent to the Tourism Ministry about HCEB’s suspicious issuing of the restaurant licence. An internal inquiry on how and who had issued the licence for a restaurant when there was no PA permit covering the change of use led to a dead end, but MTA was determined to resolve the issue.
MTA asked the Director of Planning what permits existed for the premises in question, but after six months there was still no reply. The DCC confirmed that MEPA’s records are very up-to-date and a permit issued after 1992 is usually found within seconds on their database. But in this case, since there was no permit issued, it is understood that MEPA refused to answer back simply to protect its in-action on this issue.
In the meantime, MTA also requested the owner to send the MEPA permit for the restaurant because none was found in the file. MTA also warned the owner that the licence would not be renewed until they received a valid MEPA permit. To help speed up the process, the residents sent copies of the only MEPA permits available to the Director of Planning, but all was in vain because no reply was sent.
Finally after more pressure, MEPA replied to MTA after six months, and sent a copy to DCC stating that the establishment was considered as commercial. The residents finally got what they were waiting for; a reply from MEPA that there was no change of use permit for a restaurant. This was confirmed by DCC because since no permit was found, the change of use was never sanctioned.
The DCC also concluded that since MEPA did not state what kind of commercial establishment the site relates to, it was duty bound to apply only known permits; the cafeteria in 1991 being superseded by the supermarket in 1994. In both cases, a change of use was necessary for a restaurant to operate.
Now that DCC have formally confirmed the resident’s objections, the owner is duty bound to close down the restaurant and open it up as the last MEPA permit stipulates; that of a supermarket. MEPA’s enforcement officers and the Police are also duty bound to close down the restaurant should the owner not comply. The only options open to the owner are to appeal to the Planning Appeals Board or submit a fresh application. Should the latter be done, the owner is now obliged to request the change of use if the establishment will not be operated as a supermarket.
The residents feel that because they have been suffering for more than 8 years, the licence should be withdrawn immediately and the restaurant closed down. A proper investigation on the issuing of the licence without the necessary and required MEPA permit should also take place. MEPA should also investigate the enforcement officers’ relentless lack of action.
The residents also argue that because other permits were issued for the restaurant when there were so many illegalities on site, they should be withdrawn and considered null and void. They also add that the façade should be returned to its original state as persistently stipulated by the DCC. On the other hand, because MTA had asked the owner to produce the MEPA permit, and it is now confirmed that there is none, MTA should keep to its word and not renew the licence.
The residents once again confirm that they have no objection in a commercial establishment. This issue was also mentioned, discussed, an agreement reached and the issue cleared during DCC meetings. The residents are only objecting to the use of a restaurant. Any other shops which do not create health hazards and late night nuisance in the supposed residential are more than welcome.
The residents now hope that all the authorities will finally do their job and give the residents their long overdue rights.
Nyal Xuereb
Sliema
|
