Tribunal orders roof boundary wall to be made entirely of masonry

In fact, the Planning Commission maintained, “the raising of the wall between the two adjacent tenements is subject to the condition that masonry wall is used up to the third-party terrace railing and translucent material is used above this.”

Following the issue of said permit, a third-party objector filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that boundary walls between dwellings are regulated by the Maltese Civil Code (Chapter 16 Laws of Malta). 

Reference was made to Article 414 of the Civil Code which provides that “Every co-owner may raise the height of a common wall, but he shall be liable for the expenses necessary (a) for raising the height of the wall, (b) for keeping in good repair the part raised above the height of common wall and (c) for carrying out such works as may be necessary for the support of the additional weight resulting from the raising of the wall, so that the stability of the wall will not be impaired.” 

Reference was also made to Article 427 of the same Code which stipulates that “the person in whose building there are stairs leading to the roof is bound to raise at his own expense the party-wall to the extent of one metre and eighty centimetres above the level of the roof.’’

In this case, the appellant contended that the approved boundary wall edges an “accessible” terrace, further to which, the applicant is legally bound to ensure that the height of the proposed wall is at least 1.8 metres in terms of the Civil Code. 

In addition, the appellant maintained that the translucent material on top of the masonry wall (as provided in the permit subject to appeal) is not in keeping with the “general character” of the house, apart from the fact that it “does not guarantee the same level of privacy as a masonry built boundary wall”.

For its part, the Authority reiterated its position, stating that Article 427 of the Civil Code was cited out of context since the terrace in question overlooks a yard owned by applicant and does not abut directly objector’s property.

In its assessment, the Tribunal held that the use of “translucent material” is nonetheless considered “alien” in terms of design and therefore out of synch with the aesthetic character of the area. After giving due regard to the building orientation and the height of the proposed wall, the Tribunal concluded that the level of daylight reaching objector’s tenement is deemed adequate and theapplicant could opt to retain the height as proposed. 

Tribunal concluded that a boundary wall must be entirely constructed in masonry even though it does not abut directly neighboring property

Notwithstanding, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed wall must be entirely constructed in masonry.

 [email protected]