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
19:26
All votes pass through with governmeent voting in favour, Opposition against
16:24
Dutch tax rulings in 2006 and 2011 appear to have reduced Ikea's tax payments in the Netherlands, according to a statement
16:00
Somali Mustafa Mohamud Mohamed, 29, was accused of damaging five cars that were parked at the Pieta' seafront
15:27
Lebanese Uber driver, named as Tareq H, confessed to killing Rebeca Dykes in Beirut
15:12
32-year-old man pleads not guilty to charges of threatening ex-partner's father after the latter killed his horse