DPC rejects Amar Bakery project
The Development and Planning Commission yesterday unanimously rejected an application to demolish the Amar Bakery and construct an eight storey residential building on the site.
The decision was met with applause from objectors.
The demolition application was refused unanimously, meaning the planning application for the construction of the new building was also knocked back.
It is expected that the developer will file new plans taking on board some of the comments made during the meeting yesterday.
At the public monthly meeting of the DPC, four objectors addressed the Commission, including one representing a group of people opposed to the project.
The objectors raised numerous concerns ranging from the height and design of the building, which is within the city walls, to more practical issues such as parking and the loss of light for residents in the area.
The DPC heard that some 1,355 people had signed a petition objecting to the project.
One objector had enlisted the services of a company called Planning Vision to create what “a more suitable design” for a building in the area.
He suggested the façade level be retained in the lower floors and stepped back for any additional levels.
Another objector highlighted the fact that a Georgian building existed in the underlay of the building and he said this should be retained and enhanced, not demolished and rebuilt.
He gave an example of a building opposite the Eliott Hotel, which he said was similar to the one being discussed and had been restored.
The approval of one application for Catalan Village affected the decision made on another mainly due to an encroachment issue.
The application for the construction of a three-storey apartment block and refurbishment of the existing cottage at 69-70 Catalan Village was deferred yesterday following the approval of the refurbishment and extension to 77 Catalan Bay.
The plans for 77 Catalan Bay saw the development been taken right up to the legal boundary line of the site. However, in doing so it would mean that the passageway, which is not a legal right of way, will become narrower, 40 centimetres at its narrowest point.
The applicant for 69-70 does not own the area where the passageway is so as a result will have to allow for the width to be retained and taken into account in their development. The scheme will have to be redesigned to incorporate this.
When the plans are refiled the Sub Committee will make the decision, thereby negating the need for the developer to attend the public DPC meeting and its processes.
It was also noted during the meeting that the Government are in the process of repainting some of the buildings in the village, in bright colours.
Standing in for one of her fellow ministers, Samantha Sacramento highlighted the fact that the colours for the repainting have been selected and the new developments should complement this.
The application for 29-35 Engineer Lane, the ex-Risso Bakery, gained unanimous approval.
An application for a glazed enclosure to the be constructed beside Burger King in Casemates was refused as was the application by another applicant for the removal of two mature trees and the Cityscape sign at the entrance to Main Street.
The developer of Plata Villa had their application for the construction of an apartment above the existing car lift at the podium level refused. No one voted in favour of the project, with six refusing it and four abstaining.
In his presentation to the DPC the developer said the construction of the new apartment was to go in some way to the financial impact Brexit has had on his business. Stating he has lost half a million pounds so far because of this.
The proposed construction of a lap pool at New Aloes gained approval. As did, the proposed refurbishment and alterations to 17-21 Cannon Lane and the proposed two storey extension and refurbishment of 4 Georges Lane.
Structures to mitigate the impact of the wind on alfresco diners at West One and Eurotowers also gained approval. Both Truth in West One and Lunchbox in Eurotowers filed applications regarding this. Both applications were approved, however, there is a height restriction of two metres on the glass screens.
The application for LCD advertising boards in Casemates and Main Street, that will replace existing concrete terror barriers was refused.
An application for 304C Main Street was deferred to allow the applicant, a government lawyer, to make representations and carry out correspondence using his personal as opposed to his work email address.
The applicant had replied to correspondence from the Town Planner sent to his work email, noting objections to his application.