Tribunal revokes permit for raising party wall which would block views of Grand Harbour

A planning application entitled “To raise dividing wall between properties for privacy and raise existing chimneys accordingly”, in St Paul Street, Valletta, was approved by MEPA’s Environment and Planning Commission, following which the neighbour of the adjacent property lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal requesting revocation of the permit.

The tribunal ordered the MEPA to withdraw the permit.

In his submissions, the objector insisted that the applicant’s declaration to the effect that the applicant is the sole owner of the entire site (which includes the “dividing wall” set to be raised) is factually incorrect since the party wall appertains to both the objector and the applicant.

The objector therefore insisted that the information given by the applicant is misleading, so the permit should be revoked. To support his argument, the objector (appellant) made reference to Article 68(3) of Act X of 2010 which inter alia provides that when not the sole owner, an applicant is required to notify any co-owner via what is commonly referred to as ‘Certificate B’ and obtain consent to proceed with the works.

In addition, the objector stated that the applicant had no reason to raise the dividing wall separating his property from that of the objector since “the proposed extension will not contribute anything to the privacy of both tenements”. The objector further alleged that “the sole possible effect of raising this wall would be to obstruct his view of the entrance to Grand Harbour, as well as diminishing the sea breeze flowing from the North Easterly direction.”

For its part, the MEPA (having issued the permit) counteracted by stating that a permit is issued on the express condition that “if the declaration of ownership, as contained in the application form, is determined as incorrect by a Court of Law, then the said Court of Law can declare this development permission as null and void”,  adding that any development permission “does not remove or replace the need to obtain the consent of the land/building owner to this development before it is carried out. This development permission is granted saving third party rights.”

In other words, MEPA was maintaining once again that ownership issues are ultimately decided by the Civil Courts.

In its assessment, the tribunal observed that Article 68(3) of Act X of 2010 clearly provides that applicants are required to notify any co-owner of their intentions to carry out any development relative to a site which they co-own with such co-owners. Having said that, the tribunal also noted that the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the laws of Malta) gives a right to co-owners to raise the height of a party wall. More so, the tribunal agreed with the MEPA that any issues regarding ownership should be dealt with before the Civil Courts. 

The tribunal agreed with the MEPA that any issues regarding ownership should be dealt with before the civil courts

Nonetheless, the tribunal observed that the proposed raising of the wall is unacceptable in terms of planning policy since it would result in an exposed blank wall in a World Heritage Site. On this basis, the tribunal ordered the authority to revoke the permit.