St George’s Bay tent structure returns after tribunal’s concession

Appeals tribunal overturns PA’s refusal for permanent glass structure that blocked bay’s vista by allowing retractable tent for restaurant

A St George’s Bay restaurant’s tent structure, originally refused by the Planning Authority, has reappeared after the decision was partly overturned by the EPRT appeals tribunal.

The tribunal acknowledged that Paranga restaurant’s fixed glass structure as originally proposed would impinge on views of the beach, but accepted that a retractable tent would not have the same impact.

Residents unaware of the EPRT decision were surprised to see the structure back in place just a few days before the election: the decision was actually taken in July 2021 but the permit reissued in January.

Originally, the PA board refused Paranga’s request to sanction the structure rising 5m above the public promenade. Works had already started in 2018 but where stopped by the PA’s enforcement unit.

The restaurant belongs to the Eden Leisure Group, whose businesses include the nearby Eden Cinema complex as well as the Intercontinental Hotel.

The Lands Authority had issued its consent for the works, but the PA’s planning directorate recommended refusal due to the “unacceptable visual impact on the views from the public road and promenade towards the sea”.

The PA followed suit and refused the permit.

An appeal was filed by architect Robert Musumeci on behalf of Eden Leisure, arguing that a more invasive structure had already been approved with a 2013 development notification order.

Musumeci said the transparent glass and think metal frame ensured the bay’s visibility would not be affected, and reminded that the area had been allocated to Eden Leisure through a 2006 encroachment permit.

The EPRT overturned the PA’s refusal, saying the permit should be limited to a lightweight, retractable tent with open sides, 2.8m over and above the beach club’s roof. Other structures constructed above street level had to be removed.

The PA defended its refusal, saying the ‘pre-existing commitment’ to use the site for outdoor dining was “completely flawed” and that the development had specifically requested a permanent massive glass structure impinging on the bay vista.