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.

Application turned down due to illegalities

The appellant evidently failed to take action with regard to the site illegalities 

robert_musumeci
Robert Musumeci
7 April 2017, 7:32am
A planning application to sanction structural modifications which were carried out in a licensed restaurant had been turned down by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority
A planning application to sanction structural modifications which were carried out in a licensed restaurant had been turned down by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority
A planning application to sanction structural modifications which were carried out in a licensed restaurant had been turned down by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (the MEPA). The application also included a request to sanction an enclosed balcony at first floor. The restaurant in question is located in Marina Street, overlooking the promenade of Marsaskala.

To justify its position, the Authority had held that “the enclosed first floor balconies do not compliment the rest of the building” adding that the balcony structure would occupy more than 40 % of the façade width, thus running counter to Policy 11.5 (a) of Development Control of the Policy and Desig Guidance 2007. Moreover, the Authority observed that the applicant had failed to obtain a Tourism Policy Compliance (TPC) Certificate.

In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that he was willing to reduce the balcony area to 40% of the façade, thus “bringing it in line with the Policy and Guidance regulations.”

More so, applicant, now appellant, submitted that a tourism compliance certificate was issued by the Malta Tourism Authority in the interim period.

In reply, the Authority requested the Tribunal to stop short from deciding on the merits of the case, alleging that applicant had made no attempt to sanction the illegal canopy on the front part of the premises. The Authority insisted that the canopy was larger than what was approved in a pervious permit.

Besides, it was alleged that applicant had installed an advert sign without obtaining planning consent. The Authority thus contended that Article 14 (1) of LN 514/10, which expressly provides that “where illegal development is present on a site, new development on that same site cannot be considered unless it is regularized,” should apply in the said circumstances. Concluding, the Authority stressed that any attempt to address the design of the balcony at such late stage “does not justify permit approval since the works were carried out illegally and therefore should be removed.”

In its assessment, the Tribunal highlighted that, as previously observed by the Authority, the appellant had evidently failed to take any concrete action with regard to the site illegalities prior to submitting his application. Against this background, the Tribunal felt that it should not delve into the merits of the appeal given that “where illegal development is present on a site, new development on that same site cannot be considered unless it is regularized.”

Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit

robert_musumeci
Dr Robert Musumeci is a warranted advocate and a perit. He also holds a Masters Degree in ...
Latest Environment News
11:07
Amnesty International claimed that the coastguard and those who are handed the migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, are often acting hand ...
10:50
You’re supposed to scream big news from mountain tops, right?
09:51
Former lover of Mintoff scion Yana Mintoff Bland gets six years in jail for attacking partner with a knife after she threw him out of her ho...
09:36
Republic Day tomorrow sees retirement of Mr Justice David Scicluna, whle another three judges will retire in 2018 once they reach 65
09:24
Three women first came forward during the 2016 presidential election, accusing Trump of unwanted kissing and groping