MaltaToday

.
MEPA Watch | Sunday, 22 February 2009

Robert Musumeci about the controversial works at the Bishop’s Palace in Birgu

Case Details
A full development application was submitted to carry out rehabilitation works at the Bishop’s Palace in Birgu. The proposal comprises the installation of a lift at the backyard along with the construction of additional rooms at roof level. According to the submitted drawings, the lift was to be made of steel incorporated in a vertical glass structure. The said additions at roof level are proposed to be setback by a distance of 7.3 metres from the façade facing the road. Needless to say, the site falls an Urban Conservation Area. It is documented that when the Knights of St John took residence in Birgu, it was Domenico Cubelles himself to build this Episcopal palace in 1542. According to available historical dossiers, this Palace became the Inquisitor’s Palace in October 1561 during the time when Pope Paul established the Roman Inquisition in Malta. During the 20th century, this palace was used as the Birgu Primary School, following which period, this building has fallen into disuse.
The Bishop’s Palace is adorned with a Renaissance door with an elaborate Doric entablature. The façade includes a ground floor and mezzanine floor grouped into one storey, and another storey consisting of a very high first floor with widely spaced, straight- headed windows
A recent MEPA application to carry out restoration works together with the construction of additional rooms at roof level and a small pool has been already refused by the Authority.
However, a recent attempt was made again to obtain a permit for extensions at roof level without the introduction of a pool.

Case Officer’s views
The case officer argued that the building under review is a potential Grade 1 scheduled building. The case officer made further reference to the conclusions made the Integrated Heritage Management (IHM) team and the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee, which essentially state the proposal should be rejected.
The case officer went further to underline that such an application would result in a very dangerous precedent for other insensitive developments on Grade 1 monuments. To back his arguments, the case officer stated that the Grand Harbour Local Plan and the Structure Plan aim to respect Urban Conservation Areas by protecting their historical, architectural and visual interest.

MEPA’s Decision
The case was heard before the DCC last Monday. Following extensive deliberation, the DCC approved the request. In its justification, the DCC commented that the proposal rehabilitates an abandoned scheduled building. The DCC justified further its position by stating that the roof structures had been limited in location and are concentrated in an area where other commitments exist already. The DCC further retained that the works should be monitored.

Robert Musumeci’s observations
It must be observed at the very outset that this building is currently uninhabited, in a complete state disrepair. Sensitive redevelopment of the site would certainly benefit Birgu form a social, economic and cultural point of view. From a planning policy perspective, the proposal militates in favour of Structure Plan Policy SET 1 which encourages the rehabilitation and redevelopment of abandoned buildings within existing built-up areas.
It is also positive to note that the applicant was committed to abide by a very stringent restoration method statement, which includes the removal of the loose dirt and soot from the facades using a dry brush, the removal of biological growth, the removal of dead cables and metal objects affixed to the building as well as the sensitive repair of stone using plastic repair techniques.
Ultimately, it must be underlined that the recessed extensions at roof level are invisible from public view. It therefore follows that Structure Plan Policy UCO 7 (which states that for Grade 1 Listed Buildings, alterations which impair the setting or change the external or internal appearance will not be allowed) is not being prejudiced by way of this proposal. Against this background, no one can level any charges against the DCC for an irresponsible planning decision.

 


Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.

Search:



MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY




Copyright © MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016, Malta, Europe
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email