|
Half-truths are graver than blatant lies. Mr Mark Gasan presented aspects of the Piazzetta saga that he thought to favour their cause. But there other facts on the balance that outweigh his arguments and which he concealed from his interviewer.
The true perspective of the whole story to date is: back in 1993, Messrs Gasan had applied to the Planning Authority (PA) to build a block of eight-storey apartments in place of the Naval Clinic extending to cover most of the ‘Piazzetta’. Here it is worthwhile mentioning that the ‘Piazzetta’, though a private holding, is designated as Pjazza Ghar id-Dud as it appears in 19th and 20th century electoral registers. The Planning Directorate (PD) of the PA recommended refusal of the permit. The Development Control Commission (DCC) of the Planning Authority unanimously refused granting a permit in a public meeting of the DCC.
Messrs Gasan appealed the DCC decision. The Planning Appeals Board (PAB) accepted the developer’s appeal suggesting that the height of the building over the ‘Piazzetta’ is scaled to five storeys high, ignoring the development outline as marked specifically for the site in the Temporary Building Scheme (TBS) of the Structure Plan, and disregarding that the ‘Naval House’ is a Schedule 2 protected building. The TBS clearly delineates the frontage of the ‘Naval Clinic’ for a not more than eight-storey building, while the ‘Piazzetta’ is shown as a ‘white’ area, meaning “not for development”.
The PA consequently appealed on points of law against the PAB decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was upheld and the case was sent back to the PAB to deal afresh with the appeal.
Meanwhile Messrs Gasan submitted a new application with amended plans but still pushing contentiously their plan to build over the ‘Piazzetta’ space and demolishing the Scheduled 2 ‘Naval Clinic’. Again the PD of MEPA (in the meantime the PA was reorganised as the Malta Environment and Planning Authority) recommended refusal of the permit. The MEPA Board at a public meeting agreed with the recommendation of the PD, thus refusing Gasan’s second application.
Again Gasan appealed against the Board’s decision to the PAB. Several PAB meetings were appointed, but each time Messrs Gasan failed to make an appearance to present their case. Subsequently, their appeal was moved ‘sine die’ by the chairperson of the PAB.
In 2004, for the third time, Messrs Gasan submitted a new application with new plans now drawn by new architects. It is true that the plans reveal restricted developing over the ‘Piazzetta’, but retained the bone of contention to demolish the Scheduled 2 façade. Moreover, they propose to build a 15-storey phallic symbol projecting well beyond the present footprint of the Naval Clinic area into what has always been, and should remain, an open space.
I hope that I have given a factual perspective of this 13-year long saga in contrast to that forwarded by Mr Mark Gasan. What is amusing though fallacious is Mr Gasan’s contention that the ultimate application is a concession to the objectors, and therefore, their plans to build a 15-storey building should be likewise conceded, no matter if they adhere or not to the legal provisions of the Structure Plan.
Alex Gingell
Sliema
|
