Illegal San Gwann compound proposed for regularisation

Application presented to regularise compound which includes warehouses, garages, a villa, an open storage area, and an internal road developed without a permit over the past decades on a site along Triq l-Ibrag in an area known as Tat-Tutta in San Gwann,

An application has been presented to regularise a compound which includes warehouses, garages, a villa, an open storage area, and an internal road developed without a permit over the past decades on a site along Triq l-Ibrag in an area known as Tat-Tutta in San Gwann, a short distance from St Michael’s School.

The application was presented by Matthew Bonello, owner of Central Garage Limited.

The entire site, replete with illegal structures, covers an area of approximately 12,063 square metres. The illegal warehouses and garages complex set over three levels occupy a floor area of approximately 3,669 square metres and are used as storage for light industry, vehicle storage and vehicle maintenance.

The residential property consists of a 342square metres villa which is also earmarked for continued use as a residence.

The site also includes a two-storey building which is still under construction, identified for use as administration offices for the complex and an open storage area over 2,097square metres of land.

The aim of the application is to regularise the existing structures and activities on site with the exception of the chicken coop, which will be demolished.

The primary objective of the application: “is to better organise the site, and to upgrade the facility in order to comply with current environmental standards, in particular for waste management and surface water management”.

A planning saga  

The planning history pertaining to the Scheme Site dates back to the late 1980s, when permission was refused for development in the areas in 1988 and 1989. Subsequent applications for the development of garages and offices presented in 1991 were also refused in 1996 and 2000, respectively. Enforcement action was taken a number of times during this period.

Enforcement orders were issued in 1994 against the construction of “offices and other structures without permit” and against a “villa and garages without permit”; and again in 1998 against “construction of villa without permit”.

In 2004, the applicant submitted an application “to sanction garages, bungalow and yard”. This application was refused by MEPA in June 2006, and again after reconsideration in March 2007.

The applicant subsequently appealed the decision. But once again in January 2014 the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) dismissed the appeal and upheld MEPA’s decision to refuse permission.

In 2009, an application was submitted “to sanction a yard for building material.” This application was also refused by MEPA, in February 2010, and again after reconsideration, in April 2011, and by the Appeals Tribunal in January 2014.  In its sentence the tribunal disagreed with the applicant’s contention that the development on the site constituted a planning commitment.

“If this argument is taken outside perspective we would come to a point where no part of the island can be saved from any sort of urban development, which will destroy the entire countryside to the detriment of future generations”.

The Tribunal called on the Planning Authority and the developer to start discussions to “solve the problem of the massive development on a piece of land which is ODZ and within a rural conservation area” but noted that any solution must “respect the public interest.”

Further enforcement action was taken during 2014 against the construction of garages, stores, house; formation of a road and deposit of vehicles, scrap and construction materials, all without permit”; and against “construction of walls and deposit of construction materials, vehicles and other scrap without permit”.

The  Project Development Statement states that there is relatively limited information available on what were the previous land uses and environmental characteristics of the site prior to the construction of the irregular development. The document refers to an old farmhouse fronting the road and evidence that there was a quarry to the rear of this, which the applicant explains was reclaimed for agriculture in the early 1950s.