Back
Register for SMS Alerts
or enter your details manually below...
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Password:
Hometown:
Birthday:
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.
Existing users
Email
Password
Sorry, we couldn't find those details.
Enter Email
Sorry, we couldn't find that email.

Chimney illegal because not shown in latest permit

MEPA had issued a planning permit for catering use in 2007 but it was eventually found that the ventilation system shown in the approved permit drawings was installed in a different location

robert_musumeci
Robert Musumeci
4 December 2015, 7:59am
An enforcement notice was issued by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority against an owner of a catering establishment in St Paul’s Bay, where it was alleged that a chimney duct was installed in the property without a planning permit.

In this case, the MEPA had issued a planning permit for catering use in 2007 but it was eventually found that the ventilation system shown in the approved permit drawings was installed in a different location.

The owner lodged an appeal against the enforcement notice before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, asking for the notice’s revocation. In his appeal submissions, it was explained that the chimney stack mentioned in the enforcement notice had in fact been installed for a long time prior to 2007 (when the permit for catering establishment was issued). Appellant thus contended that the chimney was “legal” since it had stood for 30 years.

The Tribunal inspected the property and saw that two ventilation ducts had been installed independently of each other. The Tribunal confirmed that one of the systems was actually shown in the 2007 permit drawings whereas the chimney referred to in the appealed notice was not evident in the drawings. In its assessment, the Tribunal concluded that the enforcement notice was issued correctly and confirmed its validity.

In reaction, the appellant lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), stating that the Tribunal ignored the fact that the “illegal” chimney had been in place for 30 years.

Nevertheless, the Court held that it would not enter into such assessment, since it was up to the Tribunal to delve into any evidence gathered in the process. Moreover, the Court referred to the Albert Satariano judgment and observed that an intervention which is not shown in subsequent permits shall be construed as “not covered by a permit”, regardless of its history.

robert_musumeci
Dr Robert Musumeci is a warranted advocate and a perit. He also holds a Masters Degree in ...
Latest Environment News
20:21
A goal by Jefferson de Assis on the brink of half time gave Sliema Wanderers a 1-0 win over Hibernians.
19:29
Floriana dropped two important points as they were held by Mosta in a 2-2 draw.
18:01
Protesters holding signs calling on police commissioner to resign
16:05
Varied and large crowd gathers in Valletta in a show of defiance in the aftermath of journalist's assassination
15:00
Pressure mounts on PN leader as Nationalist MPs take a stand over Delia’s credibility in the wake of the Caruana Galizia murder