Tribunal not concerned about ownership issues
A planning application entitled, ‘To carry out internal alterations and construct a lift shaft’ in a Valletta property (located in Old Mint Street) was approved by the Environment and Planning Commission after it was held that the proposed structural interventions were in line with planning policy.
The permit was approved even though a third party alleged that the application form contained a false ownership declaration. The permit was nonetheless issued subject to a condition stating that "if the declaration of ownership, as contained in the application form, is determined as incorrect by a Court of Law, then the said Court of Law can declare this development permission as null and void".
Under normal circumstances, planning permits carry a standard condition to the effect that "the development permission does not remove or replace the need to obtain the consent of the land/building owner to this development before it is carried out", which condition was also included in this permit.
The third party nonetheless appealed the said permit before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that he is the "rightful owner" of the site, adding that he was not been duly notified, in his capacity of an owner, as required by MEPA regulations. To this effect, the objector insisted that the permit should be revoked since submissions were not in line with the provisions at law.
On its part, the MEPA countered that despite objector's allegations of him not being notified about the application, he duly registered his objections within the stipulated legal time frames. Even more so, the MEPA maintained that the permit conditions contain sufficient safeguard clauses, so much so that if the declaration of ownership, as contained in the application form, is determined as incorrect by a Court of Law, "the said Court of Law can declare the development permission as null and void". As a final point, the MEPA contended that the planning tribunal has no competence to decide on issues concerning legal titles.
In its conclusions, the Tribunal observed that applicant declared to be the sole owner of the property. At the same time, the Tribunal noted that the objector failed to bring any documentary evidence demonstrating that he is the actual site owner as alleged. But even so, the Tribunal held that its jurisdiction was limited to decide on planning issues, adding that ownership considerations are to be dealt with before a court of law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal noted that the permit did not confer any ownership rights. The appeal was thus rejected.
