Showroom abutting a distributor road seen as a better option

In considering the application the Commission held that “the proposal will remove the existing parking spaces for the building and so it would conflict with Structure Plan policy TRA 4 and PA circular 3/93, which in turn seek to ensure that appropriate provision is made for off-street parking”. 

Moreover, the Commission held that “the proposed development will generate additional on-street parking on the distributor road network, which in turn would interfere with traffic flows”, creating a safety hazard. 

Following the decision, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, stating that the premises in question were used as a store and hence “there are no existing parking spaces within the premises which were due to be lost”.

The applicant further maintained that the size of the premises indicate clearly that “it was never constructed for domestic use, so much so, that the entire street is riddled with similar developments and with very heavy commitment”. With regard to the alleged safety hazard, the applicant stated that the proposed use is of a small scale.   

For its part, the authority reiterated its position, insisting that the applicant had in fact submitted a similar request way back in 2009, which application was indeed refused by both the Commission and the Tribunal after it was held that applicant failed to “provide any evidence to show that the premises were legally developed as a store”.

As a final point, the Authority maintained that a use or an activity is considered legitimate if supported by a trading licence issued prior to April 1994.

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the site in question is located adjacent to similar commitment.

But even so, the Tribunal asserted that Policy FL-GNRL-1 (which permits the proposed use) took effect in 2013, following commencement of the appeal proceedings. Moreover, the Tribunal underlined that in the event that the applicant’s request is entertained, a parking space would be provided in front of the premises, concluding that it is more desirable to have a car showroom abutting a distributor road rather than a garage, since fewer vehicular movements (in and out of the premises) are expected. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found in favour of applicant and ordered the MEPA to issue the permit.

[email protected] 

Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and a degree in law