Objections against permit for a shop and office dismissed

A planning application entitled ‘Change of use from a garage to one part to be used as an office and the remaining part to be used as a Class IV shop’ was approved by the Environment and Planning Commission, following which an appeal was lodged before the Environment and Planning Tribunal by a number of objectors.

In their submissions, the objectors insisted that that the permit should be revoked.

The objectors pointed out that the applicant had already submitted an application for a change of use from garage to a gymnasium and a retail outlet, which proposal was turned down.

More so, the objectors added that the approved plans were made in such a way as to “avoid the policy which lays down that a class 4 shop must be of not more than 50 square metres and an office not more than 75 square metres”.

The objectors argued that the garage would nonetheless be used for one and the same purpose, that is, a commercial retail outlet, since  the shop and office would eventually be interconnected and accessed via  “a narrow and dark corridor”. On a separate note, it was also claimed that the approved drawings do reflect the actual situation on site. 

Minimal variations in plans not tantamount to false information

For its part, the MEPA case officer countered by stating that the existing garage would have two separate uses, namely “a retail shop at the front and an office at the rear of the garage”. Furthermore, the case officer underlined that such uses are allowed by virtue of Policy CG 07 of the Central Malta Local Plan, provided that class 4 shops and offices do not exceed 50 square metres and 75 square metres respectively. (In this case, the approved drawings show a proposed Class 4 shop having an area of 42 square metres whereas the proposed office has an area of 63 square metres).

In its assessment, the Tribunal concluded that although the approved plans did not show the actual situation on site, the differences between the site measurements and the scaled drawings were considered minimal. But even so,  the actual floor areas (as measured on site) were within the limitations set out in the Local Plan. The Tribunal also observed that both the shop and office have an independent access, irrespective of the fact that these belong to the same owner. Against this background, the Tribunal held that the permit should remain valid.

[email protected]

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