Policy “relaxed” due to steep road gradient

Moreover, the Commission underlined that the front garden boundary wall does not conform with policy 9.3 (Front Garden Boundary Walls - Height) of the Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2007, since the wall is in excess of 1.4 metres in height above pavement level.

In reaction, applicant appealed the said decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, contending that a number of errors “crept in” during actual construction because of the steep gradient of Trejqa tax-Xaghri in relation to the entrance ramp leading to the garage.  

The applicant maintained that the builder had “mistakenly” done away with the “stepping” in the slab over the garage and part of the roof structure now exceeds the 0.7 metre limit as a consequence. With regards to the boundary wall, applicant underlined that  “there are parts where the front garden wall exceeds the stipulated height”, while the remaining extents are “well short of the limitation.’’

For its part, the MEPA case officer reiterated that the floor level in the front garden area  (corresponding to the roof of the basement garage subject of the application) is higher than 0.7 metres above finished pavement level and therefore cannot be sanctioned in terms of policy 5.3 of DC 2007. 

At the same time, the case officer stressed once again that part of the front garden boundary wall is higher than 1.4 metres high, as required by policy.

In its assessment, the Tribunal conceded that if one had to limit the height of the basement roof to 0.7 metres with respect to street level as suggested by the MEPA officer, vehicular access would be practically impossible by reason of the steep road gradient. With regards to the boundary wall, the Tribunal held that the upper courses (in excess of the stipulated height of 1.4 metres) should be replaced by a visually less obtrusive railing.

If one had to follow MEPA’s suggestions, access to the basement would be practically impossible in view of the steep road gradient