MEPA ordered to issue permit for garage in a housing estate

The commission argued that the proposed garage encroaches onto a front garden area and thus goes contrary to the official alignment as set out by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA). At the same time, the Commission added that the proposal is considered to run against the spirit of Structure Plan policy BEN 1, which essentially seeks to protect the residential amenity of the area.

Finally, the commission observed that a kitchen/dining room was being proposed to be constructed in an area which should remain “open and undeveloped”.  For this reason, it was concluded that the proposal is incompatible with the urban design and environmental characteristics of the area. 

 In reaction, the applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, stating that similar planning applications were permitted in the immediate vicinity within the same housing estate. Applicant pointed out that in the case of semi-detached villas, garages are typically allowed in side gardens and hence there should be no reason to turn down a similar request in housing estates.

Furthermore, it was observed that, in this case, “there is a serious parking problem since the official parking areas and garages provide very limited facilities.” To this end, the applicant contended that his proposal would remove the need for one on-street parking bay. In his conclusions, the applicant also  “questioned” how a low lying garage would not maintain the visual integrity of the area, adding that the authority usually insists that applicants should provide adequate parking facilities for new buildings. 

In its response, the MEPA reiterated that side curtilages are spaces within the

building alignment where development is not usually permissible except

“under certain parameters”. According to the case officer, the proposed one-storey high garage would  “disrupt the uniformity of the building block and reflect negatively on the surrounding environment since it is aesthetically unacceptable and is not respecting the character and appearance of the existing building and urban layout.”

 In its assessment, the tribunal nonetheless agreed that a number of permits for the construction of garages adjacent to nearby blocks were issued in the not so distant past, as stated by the applicant. But even so, the tribunal highlighted that the proposed one storey garage edges a wide passageway which is in turn located close to a low lying blank boundary wall pertaining to the back yards of an adjacent block. In the circumstances, the tribunal saw that the proposal would not impact negatively on the visual integrity of the area. Against this background, the tribunal held that the proposal could be favourably considered and ordered the MEPA to issue the permit.

[email protected]

The Tribunal saw that the proposed garage would not impact negatively on the visual integrity of the area