Tribunal rejects request to assess plans not forming part of application

The Commission also maintained that “the access ramp to the ground floor encroaches onto the pedestrian footway and will not be in the interests of pedestrian safety or convenience.”

In addition, it made reference to Structure Plan policy TRA 4 and the car parking standards set out in Table A2.5 in the Structure Plan Explanatory Memorandum.

The memorandum highlights that the proposal “fails to provide the required car parking spaces and it will thus give rise to unacceptable additional on-street car parking which would not be in the interests of the amenity of the area and which would exacerbate existing problems of congestion, potential highway danger and vehicular and pedestrian conflict.’’

In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal before the then Planning Appeals Board, stating inter alia that the building in question is covered by a permit issued way back in 1991.

Applicant further argued that the side road where the Authority alleged that the building has encroached beyond the official alignment is indeed a private road.

In conclusion, the applicant stated that he is willing to make a financial compensation towards the Urban Improvement Fund with a view to make good  for any parking shortfall. 

Meanwhile, the applicant submitted another planning application in 2009, which, once again, was refused and which (unlike in the case of the 2002 application) was not appealed before the tribunal. Nonetheless, applicant alleged that he had submitted revised drawings addressing all the issues raised by the Commission prior to  the decision pertaining to the 2009 application, and yet, the amended drawings never reached the Commission.

For this reason, the architect submitted a copy of the latest 2009 drawings to the tribunal, and requested the tribunal to deliver its decision on the basis of the revised drawings pertaining to the 2009 application. 

In its assessment, the tribunal nonetheless rejected the applicant’s request.

It held that it was precluded by law from anchoring its decision on drawings which, for a start, were not found in the file subject to the appeal.

The tribunal concluded by stating that if applicant felt aggrieved with the 2009 decision, he should have filed an appeal in reaction to that decision within the period allowed by law.

 Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and has also a degree in law

The tribunal said that it was legally precluded from anchoring its decision on drawings pertaining to a different application