Penthouse approved as built since no adverse visual impact

The Commission observed that the street height limitation was restricted to two floors following the 2006 Local Plan amendments, which in this case, the approved building height already totaled seven storeys and wash-rooms at roof level. 

It said that the sanctioning of the penthouse overlying the corner development would violate the Structure Plan policy UCO10 in that it would adversely affect views of the Urban Conservation Area and detract from the traditional urban skyline.

In addition, MEPA's Commission maintained that the proposal runs counter to policies 10.6 and 10.7 of the MEPA's Policy and Design Guidance 2007 since "the penthouse is not adequately setback from the frontal alignment" as a result of which, the building envelope was considered to "adversely affect the views from Triq Windsor."

As a final note, the Commission observed that in line with Regulation 14 of Legal Notice 514 of 2010, the applicant is required to either remove or sanction a number of illegalities. The illegalities identified by the Commission relate to the fact that a fully fledged ground floor was built instead of a 1.6 metre high semi-basement as originally approved.

In reaction, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that the property in question lies adjacent to a nine-storey building. 

The applicant also maintained that the original permit included washrooms at penthouse level and he should therefore not be held responsible for the alleged illegalities since the underlying apartments belong to third parties.

On its part, MEPA stressed that in a given site, "no permit should be issued if there are illegalities on site that are not being sanctioned or regularised in the same application", irrespective of ownership. 

Turning back to the washrooms, MEPA's case officer argued that these were approved subject to being set back by 3.5 metres from the frontage facing Windsor Street. In this case, the penthouses were receded only by 3 metres. 

In its assessment the Tribunal observed that enforcement was never issued in relation to the height of the semi basement - hence the alleged illegalities were being questioned and also maintained that as a matter of principle, penthouses are usually permitted in Urban Conservation Areas when a building is higher than four storeys. 

Even more so, the Tribunal concluded that albeit the set back distances at penthouse level were not strictly in line with the policy, no adverse visual impact was envisaged. 

All this being taken into consideration, the Tribunal acceded to applicant's request and ordered MEPA to issue the permit.

[email protected]