Spinola Bay’s 19th century houses get ready for their ‘makeover’

Two of St Julian’s most recognisable homes are to be turned into apartment blocks as two identical applications have been presented to add five floors to make way for 12 new apartments

The facades of the townhouses on Spinola Road and Spinola Bay are earmarked for Grade 2 scheduling
The facades of the townhouses on Spinola Road and Spinola Bay are earmarked for Grade 2 scheduling

Two of St Julian’s most recognisable homes – their turrets earned them the description of “solitary stately homes” in 1898 survey sheets – are to be turned into apartment blocks.

Two identical applications have been presented to add five floors on top of the two Spinola bay townhouses to make way for 12 new apartments.

They foresee the addition of an extra floor over and above two permits that were already issued in September 2017, against the advice of the Planning Authority’s planning directorate.

Their facades on Spinola Road and on Spinola Bay are both earmarked for Grade 2 scheduling.

The applications were separately presented by Joe Sammut and Clifton Cassar, after the Planning Authority’s appeals tribunal overturned two decisions taken back in 2010 and 2011 against the development proposed by Albert Coppini.

Originally the developers wanted to demolish the townhouses, but the appeals tribunal allowed three additional floors on the two townhouses.

Their facades on Spinola Road and on Spinola Bay are both earmarked for Grade 2 scheduling.
Their facades on Spinola Road and on Spinola Bay are both earmarked for Grade 2 scheduling.

While saying the two buildings deserved protection, the appeals tribunal insisted that it could not ignore permits issued for apartment blocks adjacent to the two townhouses.

“While the buildings should be restored, additional storeys should be constructed in the same way as has been done on adjacent sites,” the tribunal had said.

In September 2017, the PA approved two applications to add 10 apartments on the existing façade, against the advice of the case officer.

The case officer had pointed out that the proposed design does not reflect the architectural and symmetrical design features of the existing building and the design as proposed does not relate well to the appearance of the entire building.

Through both applications the two buildings will rise to the same height of adjacent buildings.