Reconstruction of room allowed after it was found to have existed prior to 1978
The Planning Commission has turned down an application contemplating the redevelopment of an old room incorporating a roof consisting of masonry slabs and timber beams
A planning application contemplating the redevelopment of an old room incorporating a roof consisting of masonry slabs and timber beams was turned down by the Planning Commission. The site in question was located outside the development zone of Mosta. To justify the decision, the Commission held as follows:
1. The proposed development ran counter to the provisions of policy 6.2C (5)(a) of the Rural Policy & Design Guidance (RPDG) 2014 in that the existing structure was found to be not ‘legally established or covered by a development permission’;
2. The proposal was not in line with the Thematic Objective 1 of the Strategic Plan for Environment & Development which states that land take up should be limited for uses which are necessary or legitimate in rural areas;
3. The proposal ran counter to Rural Objectives 1, 3, and 4 which aim to facilitate sustainable rural development by controlling the location and design of rural development, as well as the cumulative effect of such development.
In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal against the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that permission should have been issued. In his appeal, applicant put forward the following arguments:
According to the rural policy, the term ‘legally established’ was tantamount to ‘any intervention, including land-use change and land reclamation covered by development permission or that which is visible on the 1978 aerial photographs’. Given that the building in question existed prior to 1978, it was therefore considered to be legally established in terms of law. It followed that applicant had a vested right over the property and the Authority was thus wrong to conclude that the proposal was in breach of policy 6.2C (5)(a) of the Rural Planning Guidance on the basis that “the existing structure has not been legally established or covered by a development permit”;
In reply, the Authority acknowledged that applicant had a permit bearing reference PA3314/09, which permit was still valid. This permit envisaged the construction of a swimming pool and wells, the restoration of rubble walling and additional boundary walls, rehabilitation of existing fields and existing structures. This permit was, however, issued subject to the removal of the room in question. More so, the officer observed that, according to the old aeriel maps, the structure in question was unroofed.
In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the room in question was in a dilapidated state. It also confirmed that, as stated by the Authority, a permit was issued on site for the rehabilitation of a dwelling located within the same precincts, subject to the removal of the room in question. Having said that, the Tribunal noted that the structure in question existed prior to 1978 and it could thus be rebuilt according to policy. For this reason, the appeal was entertained.