Authority ordered to issue permit for installation of aluminium apertures

At issue was a planning application contemplating internal and external alterations to a ground floor tenement. The proposed designs included the replacement of timber facade apertures with aluminium. The proposed development was, however, rejected by the Planning Commission after noting that the property in question was located in Triq Simpson (Marsa) within an urban conservation area. To support its decision, the Commission held the following reasons of refusal:

• The proposed design was incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the Urban Conservation Area since it would not maintain the visual integrity of the area. For this reason, the proposal was deemed to be incompatible with Urban Objectives 2 and 4 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development;
• The proposal was considered to run counter to the provisions of Good Practice Guidance G50 of the Development Control Design Policy, Guidance and Standards 2015 which specifies that ‘aperture replacements should be in same design, proportions, colours and materials’;
• The proposal was in breach of Urban Objective 3 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development which aims to protect and enhance the character and amenity of urban areas.
• The Superintendent of Cultural Heritage and the Design Advisory Committee had objected to the proposal;

As a reaction, applicant lodged an appeal against the decision before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that the permit should have been approved. In his appeal, applicant (now, appellant) argued that his tenement was situated in a street characterised by ‘existing commitments which make use of other materials other than timber, including aluminium’. Furthermore, applicant contended that if aluminium is ‘executed nicely’, the interventions would not impinge on the visual integrity of the streetscape as had been alleged by the Authority. Reference was also made to a particular permit whereby the Authority had granted permission to install two aluminium balconies in the same street.

On a separate note, appellant alleged that the Commission’s decision was taken in the absence of his architect. According to appellant, this was in breach of the principle of fair hearing. Appellant explained that upon arriving at the offices of the Authority, his architect was told that the case was scheduled to be heard the following Monday. At that point architect left the offices of the Authority, only to learn some time later that his application was determined (and refused) on that same day.

The Authority acknowledged that there were other buildings in the same street ‘which have changed their original timber and wrought iron apertures with more recent material such as aluminium and open glass type apertures’. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that in applicant’s case, the premises were located within an Urban Conservation Area.

In its assessment, the Tribunal noted that the streetscape design was not uniform. In addition, the Tribunal observed that applicant’s tenement was overlain by third property also having an aluminium closed balcony. Against this backdrop, the Tribunal ordered the Authority to issue the permit.