         |
Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions More offices in Vincenti BuildingsAn outline development application to change the use of a corner fifth floor apartment to an office in Vincenti Buildings was submitted to MEPA. This apartment occupies an area of approximately 140 m². According to the official Grand Harbour Local Plan, the area in question has been designated as a Secondary Retail Frontage of the Primary Town Center.  On reading the Grand Harbour Local Plan, it is however very clear that the proposed office use does not comply with policy GV 24, which, in effect, militates against the further introduction of new offices in Valletta, unless the proposed new office does not concern a Ministry of Government Department or a philanthropic organisation, or involves the relocation of an existing office.In fact, the case officer recommended that the request should be dismissed on the basis of the above policy provisions. In his line of defence, the architect in charge of the application requested the views of the Executive Committee (a committee composed of members from the Directorate and the MEPA Board, whose role is to provide guidance on matters which are conflicting in terms of policy) as to whether the proposal may be accepted on the basis of commitment. In their reaction, the Executive Committee comments commented as follows: “offices may be considered as part of the use to promote the rehabilitation of old houses. However, existing building is already committed with office use. The policy (GV 24 of GHLP) is against such a change in use and would prejudice the integrity as a residential entity of this building. Policy might need revisiting regarding balance between the residential and the office use, depending on the area. MEPA Board is therefore directed that policy is to be adhered.” Evidently, the Executive Committee made contrasting remarks – on one hand, it is being argued that the rehabilitation of old houses into office use should be promoted. At the same time, the DCC is being directed to follow current policy, pending the revision of the Local Plan. When the application was referred to the DCC for a final decision, the Board accepted the request on the pretext that the Vincenti building complex is already committed to office use. Moreover, the DCC pointed out that the proposal promotes the rehabilitation of an otherwise dilapidated apartment in Valletta. Furthermore, the permit was granted on condition that applicant provides a monetary contribution towards the Commuted Parking Payment Scheme. Although one may well argue that this decision runs counter to official planning policy, placing a blanket restriction against further office space in Valletta is unreasonable. It remains pertinent to point out that Vincenti Buildings are located in a strategic location in close proximity to the Law Courts. The Executive Committee were therefore correct to underline that policy GV24 needs revisiting. Any comments? |
 |
We asked.... Do you know what Vision 2015 is? 89% said ‘no’ Labour leads, but Gonzi makes slight recovery Survey confirms unpopularity of commuting Who’s the most trusted nanny in Gonzi’s cabinet? Consumers fishing around for better deals Robert Arrigo ‘most wanted’ for minister Cabinet thrives, but Fenech and Gatt hit rock bottom Bleak times – depression at the Grand Harbour Budget 2010 – Raise taxes or cut benefits? Only 35% will be taking a holiday this summer Corned beef? a matter of class Labour poised for absolute majority |
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email