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.

Stables issued following court direction

Applicant felt that the Tribunal had failed to substantiate the Authority’s allegations

robert_musumeci
Robert Musumeci
23 September 2016, 8:30am
Applicant insisted that his intentions were ‘to have a safe and comfortable place for the keeping and training of his horses’
Applicant insisted that his intentions were ‘to have a safe and comfortable place for the keeping and training of his horses’
A planning application entitled: ‘To sanction part of field as horse training track and haystore and to construct stables with paddocks’ was initially turned down by the then Environment and Planning Commission in 2011. 

The submitted drawings showed five stables (with paddocks alongside) together with a manure clamp, an underlying rainwater reservoir and a cesspit. Moreover, the site was to be surrounded by a ‘training track’. In its decision, the Commission found that ‘the proposed development is not likely to lead to an environmental improvement of the site’ and therefore ran counter to paragraph 1(f) of the stables policy at the time.

As a reaction, applicant filed an appeal before the Environment and Review Planning Tribunal. In his detailed submissions, applicant argued inter alia that he ‘had been trying to find a suitable site with the intention of utilizing it as a paddock for his horses and ultimately for the erection of their stables.’

Applicant went further to explain that this was the only site available, being close to his place of residence. Moreover, it was pointed out that the land in question was ‘degraded’ for a long period of time. Also, applicant insisted that his intentions were ‘to have a safe and comfortable place for the keeping and training of his horses’, which he would deliver to Marsa ‘by appropriate horse cabins.’ Concluding, applicant rebutted the Authority’s allegations, insisting that the site would be ‘upgraded’ since a substantial area (amounting to 750 square metres) was to be landscaped ‘with different kind of trees mainly olive and citrus trees and also conifers.’

In reply, the Authority reiterated that the proposed development could not be justified ‘as a means of improving the state of the site’, because the site was officially designated as an area of agricultural value despite its current abandoned state.

The Authority went further to observe that applicant had committed further illegalities and asked the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal since planning applications may only be determined if the ‘illegalities’ are either removed or subject to a sanctioning application. In this case, it was alleged that the pin pointed illegalities, having been carried out at a later stage, could not form part of the current application.

In its assessment, the Tribunal immediately observed that the appeal should be dismissed once the Authority had alleged that applicant had persisted with the illegal development. Moreover, the Tribunal held that the proposal was also tantamount to ‘inappropriate development’ in terms of Structural Plan Policy SET 11. 

Against this background, the Tribunal rejected the appeal.

Nonetheless, the decision was appealed before the Court of Appeal. Applicant felt that the Tribunal had failed to substantiate the Authority’s allegations where it was stated that he had committed ‘further illegalities’ pending the Commission’s decision. Indeed, the Court agreed with applicant and ordered the Tribunal to reassess the case.

This time round, the Tribunal took a different approach. It was immediately noted that the Agricultural Department had not objected to the proposal during the actual application process. In this light, the site was not deemed to qualify as ‘good arable land’. Unlike in the previous instance, the Tribunal now decided that the Authority should issue the permit.

[email protected]

Dr Musumeci is a perit and a Doctor of Laws with an interest in development planning law

robert_musumeci
Dr Robert Musumeci is a warranted advocate and a perit. He also holds a Masters Degree in ...
Latest Environment News
12:34
Maltese journalists stand up for free speech in the wake of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, as they gather in Valletta for a manifest...
11:44
Spanish government is to suspend Catalonia's autonomy after Puigdemont refused to abandon the push for independence 
10:15
At least 43 Afghan soldiers were killed on an army base in the Kandahar province
10:00
PM’s counterparts at summit will refuse to widen Brexit negotiations but talk up her efforts for fear of weakening her further
09:59
The third edition of the Bowl for Pink event, sponsored by GSD Marketing, Carisma Spa, Maypole, and The Body Shop, will be hosted at the Ede...