Tribunal issues permit for stables following declaration that land is not “environmentally sensitive”

The decision was overturned by the Environment and Planning Tribunal.

The Commission had held that the proposal does not satisfy all the criteria laid in Policy 4.3B (of the Policy and Design Guidance on Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables which was issued in 2007) in that “it will not result in a wider environmental benefit” but rather lead to “the degradation of good agricultural land.”

More so, the Commission observed that the proposal ran counter to Structure Plan policy AHF5 which prohibits new buildings in rural areas, unless these are considered essential for the needs of agriculture. 

The applicant appealed the decision and argued that the site under consideration was of “no agricultural value”.  To support his argument, the applicant went on to explain that the site had been used as a dump for the past eight years. But even so, the applicant contended that the site was in fact surrounded by other development covered by a  permit.

On his part, the case officer reiterated that the “proposal will contribute to unnecessary and unjustified soil sealing through the committal of more agricultural land”. The officer further maintained that the applicant failed to submit any official evidence to show that an attempt was made on his part to find an abandoned or under-utilised building prior to submitting this application. As a final point, the officer remarked that the applicant should not benefit from the fact that his property was being used as an illegal dump yard. 

“Arable land”: “Land that is covered with soil and is officially registered with the Department of Agriculture…”

In its assessment, the tribunal made a distinction between “arable land” and “abandoned land”. It held that “arable land” means “land that is covered with soil and is officially registered with the Department of Agriculture as dry or irrigated agricultural land”.

By corollary, “abandoned agricultural land” relates to land which does not constitute arable agricultural land. In this case, the tribunal observed that the Department of Agriculture had stated that the area is “not environmentally sensitive” and one could therefore conclude that the stables may be accommodated as proposed. Against this background, the tribunal ordered the MEPA to issue the permit.  

Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and a degree in law

[email protected]