Can you build a terraced house that has a façade of 3 metres wide? And that has a front door and front window onto the street within that width? So how wide could the door be – and the adjacent window be – and still have some space leftover for wall elements between them and on either side?
These questions are not being made in abstract. The Planning Authority’s Planning Commission is set to decide on an application for two adjacent houses that indeed have facades of around 3 metres each – the two proposed houses are set to replace a ruined vernacular house. The location is in a quaint alley, called Sqaq il-Knisja, that is within the Urban Conservation Area of Xewkija.
I am writing about this case after following the planning applications in the alley for some time. One application has been approved and legally challenged – more on this below – and three applications are pending, including the one set for decision tomorrow. These applications, which are unconnected, could end up transforming the tranquil, open alley, into an alley rather claustrophobic.

Yet this could be avoided if relevant laws had to be observed.

Narrow frontage, high back elevation
In the application set to be decided tomorrow, the two proposed houses have a façade width or frontage that is around 3 metres each. This so narrow that the window of one of the houses is closer to the neighbour's wall than permitted in Article 443 of Civil Law, which states that "it shall not be lawful for the owner of any building to open windows at a distance of less than seventy-six centimetres from the party-wall."
The two proposed houses straddle two alleys, running at front and back of the houses. And at the back, the height of the proposed buildings is incompatible with another law, Article 14 of sanitary law, which specifies that in streets of less than 3 metres wide, the height of a new building should not be more than double the width of the street.
The Planning Directorate recommended refusal on the basis of this law, and it has maintained in its latest report, published last Friday, that the proposal remains in breach of Article 14 of sanitary law.
There are two other applications further into the alley that have similar issues with width of street and house facade height, and what happens with the application of the two proposed houses tomorrow (Tuesday) will set the tone for the other pending applications.
Permit granted to demolish house of historical value
Across the alley from the site where the two narrow houses are proposed, the Planning Authority granted permit for the demolition of a ruined house that is now being challenged in revocation of permit proceedings on basis that the architectural drawing extends over a public alley – hence the permit was granted on false or misleading information by the applicant.
The two-storey building appears to be hundreds of years old, and its demolition was opposed by the NGO Din L-Art Helwa, which argued that an “applicant’s desire for a more modern dwelling lacking heritage features should not be used to justify the loss of this heritage building.” It also wrote that “the process of restoration is not limited to preserving that only which is already intact but also carrying out necessary interventions and procedures to rebuild and support that which may have deteriorated.”
The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage used equivocal language to say the building has “a degree of historical and architectural value”, and then it added that it did not object to the demolition because, according to it, it was in “a dilapidated state and beyond repair”. The Planning Authority then justified the demolition based on the Superintendence’s assertion.

The state of the building was also subject to a police prosecution, in which 10 people – co-owners of the building – were prosecuted on the basis of a law that makes it illegal for anyone to, “in spite of an intimation by the Police or by a community officer, to leave any building or work which is ruinous or dangerous to persons or to the property of others.”
The prosecution was led by inspector Bernard Spiteri, and the court, in its sentence, acquitted those charged on the basis that the prosecution failed to submit evidence clear enough to prove that the accused where the actual owners of the building.
As already pointed out, the permit for demolition is now being challenged by one of the residents of the alley on the basis that the architectural drawings – and hence the basis on which the permit was granted – falsely shows the footprint of the applicant’s site partially extending over the “public alley.” The resident presented various documents to support his pleading, including the property’s notarial sales deed.
The Planning Authority has yet to hear and decide on the revocation request despite the passage of 9 months since the application for revocation was submitted.
Sustain my work to save the alley
It takes considerable effort, resources and time to publish the articles revealing what is going on at the alley this article is about. I am also putting up wider effort, including making submissions t o the Planning Authority. Sustain my work by donating as little as €10 – I rely on donations and grants to bring food on the table.