4,006 planning illegalities already regularised since 2012

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority has since 2012 approved 4,006 requests to stop planning enforcements against minor planning illegalities, such as those being in breach of sanitary regulations due to discrepancies in the size of internal yards or back yards.

The government has cited thousands of cases involving minor illegalities to justify a proposed scheme to regularise illegal buildings.

Through the new scheme, owners of illegal developments carried out before January 2013 within development zones and before 1994 in ‘outside development zones’ (ODZ) will be able to apply for a full permit after paying a hefty fine. Approval of these applications will not be automatic and may still be denied.

But data provided by MEPA shows these planning irregularities are already being addressed by Article 9 of the Environment and Planning Act, which has been implemented through two legal notices issued by the previous administration in 2012 and 2013.

In fact, since 2012 MEPA has received 4,473 requests to regularise minor illegalities, of which 4,062 have been accepted.

• The largest number of cases – 2,012 – were approved in 2013.

• 1,470 requests were approved in 2014 and 365 were approved in the first three months of 2015.

• Only 215 cases were approved in 2012.

• The authority has refused only 23 cases, while 49 cases were withdrawn by the applicant.

• 339 cases are still being processed.

Legal concessions

The legal notice gives a concession for minor irregularities which are not to the detriment of third parties. These include encroachments which go beyond the existing official building alignments. These can include pilasters, ramps and steps which do not protrude more than 30cm beyond the official alignment onto the pavement as long as the pavement width of 1.2 metres is retained.

It also gives a concession for minor encroachments which go beyond the existing official building alignments, and minor encroachments which exist within the footprint of a built property: for example, cases where the façade of a building encroaches into the first one-third of a front garden, or structures in a front or side-garden of not more than 1.25 metres high and not larger than 10 metres squared.

A concession can also be granted if the owner changed the use of a unit into a residential development or where a permitted residential unit was subdivided into two or more units. But this concession is only applicable if the present owner of the unit is not its original owner.

A concession can also be granted to owners of dwellings for sanitary illegalities related to the size of internal yards or back yards, the floor-to-ceiling height and the size of a room built in a back yard has also been extended to cover commercial properties.

But existing legislation only allows owners to request MEPA to refrain from executing already issued enforcement notices against minor illegalities already defined in the law.

MEPA law’s Eighth Schedule

The Eighth Schedule of the Environment and Development Planning Act makes provision for at least 23 scenarios where development can be regularised.

A spokesperson for MEPA explained that the major difference between the amnesty issued in 2013 and what is being proposed now, is that while through the existing legal notice “a concession for the sanctioning of minor illegalities may be granted, in the new proposal we are recommending that a permit is granted”. 

Through the proposed amnesty the owner will benefit from the long-term advantages of having a full permit which would give him or her the possibility of applying for modifications and alterations and the possibility of putting the legalised property on the market.

The proposed regularisation scheme will also open a window of opportunity for developments made in outside development zones before 1994 which are not covered by previous amnesties.