‘PA Ignored Cultural Watchdog’s Objection’: FAA Appeals Latest Permit For Protected Sliema Building
Activists hailing from Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar have accused the Planning Authority of totally ignoring the Cultural watchdog’s objection to adding storeys to a protected building in Sliema.
This comes after the Planning Commission, comprised of Martin Camilleri, Frank Ivan Caruana, and Perit Joel Fenech, approved a permit to add six storeys to a protected three-storey building in Isouard Street, Sliema.
“Coming hot on the heels of the permit to ruin a turreted heritage building in Dingli Street Sliema, the same Planning Authority Commission has granted the same architect, Elena Borg Costanzi, yet another permit to destroy the proportions and character of an outstanding landmark building on Tower Road corner with Isouard Street,” FAA said in a statement.
“FAA condemns the fact that members of the Planning Authority boards seem determined to destroy more of Malta’s built heritage than World War II bombings, destroying the very buildings that have enhanced our towns and villages for centuries, in complete disregard of the country’s Local Plans, and ruining residents’ quality of life,” it continued.
FAA will now be appealing “this abusive permit”, and expresses its disgust that NGOs and the public have to spend their time and funds opposing the Planning Commission’s collusion with philistine speculators.
“The Planning Commission totally ignored the objections raised by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage together with a plethora of regulations designed to protect such heritage buildings,” it continued.
The Commission even went so far as to claim that the project was approved by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage when the watchdog directly opposed it.
In reality, just a month ago the Superintendence stated: “the proposed development is not acceptable from a Cultural Heritage perspective. The Superintendence finds that the transition of the proposed volumes towards the UCA into Triq Nicolo’ Isouard is not respectful and compatible with the remainder of the streetscape in the UCA.”
“A more suitable transition, more respectful to the characteristics of the traditional townhouses within the streetscape, is required.”
“The design of the proposed extension is not adequate, and the transition between the old building and the new extension is to be improved vertically.”
“Furthermore, the Superintendence still finds the proposed massing to be excessive within this context.”
Astrid Vella, on behalf of FAA, insisted that as a Category A Landmark Building, it is protected by the regulation and “there shall be a strong presumption against any changes to the facades of the built fabric and ancillary open spaces, street alignment and the addition of accretions in these areas.”
What do you make of FAA’s appeal?
READ NEXT: 400 Much Needed Birżebbuġa Parking Spots Arriving In Time For Summer
