Tribunal revokes enforcement notice – boathouse is not illegal

In the said notice, it was alleged that the boathouse was not covered by a planning permit, and MEPA ordered its removal within 16 days from the date upon which the notice had been issued. The notice was affixed on-site for a period not less than seven days, as required by law when the owner is unidentified.

The owner of the boathouse appealed the notice before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that it was legally unfounded. He clarified that no attempt to sanction the building had been made, since the boathouse was covered by a 1976 permit, adding that a sanctioning request is tantamount to admitting that the building is illegal.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, it transpired that a permit for the construction of a boathouse had in actual fact been issued to the appellant in 1976 (as pointed out by the appellant himself). Yet the boathouse had been constructed "higher" than approved (20 courses instead of 15 courses) and in a different location from that shown in the approved permit drawings (though in the immediate vicinity).

Even so, the enforcement officer acting of behalf of MEPA, who issued the notice, stated that he had indeed communicated with the owner of the boathouse on three occasions. The officer had explained to the owner that the building was not constructed according to approved plans.

Later, the enforcement officer mislaid the owner's personal details and decided to address the enforcement notice to an unknown owner. Article 96(e) of Chapter 504 provides that notice is to be made "in any case in which it is not reasonably possible to effect service in any of the foregoing manners, whether on all or on any one or more of the persons on whom service is to be made or notice is to be given, by affixing the document to be served or given in a conspicuous place on the land to which it relates and keeping it so affixed for a period of not less than seven days".

On a preliminary note, the Tribunal highlighted that a 1976 permit had been issued for the construction of a boathouse in this area. By way of conclusion, the Tribunal held that the fact that the boathouse had been constructed higher than approved and in a different location from that which is shown on a site plan does not mean that the building is not covered by a permit, as had been alleged in the enforcement notice. For this reason the Tribunal revoked the enforcement notice.