PA refuses application to rebuild Marsaskala boathouse

The rural policy which deems any building developed before 1978 as legal was  invoked by a case officer recommending the approval of an application to reconstruct a boat house in San Tumas in Marsaskala but the Environment Planning Commission still turned the application down.

In its decision the EPC insisted that the rural policy cannot be invoked in this case because the applicant failed to provide proof that the  residential use of the boathouse was legally established.  Moreover the EPC chaired by architect Elisabeth Ellul argued that the approval of the boathouse would have set a precedent for other boathouses in the San Tumas area.

Recently  MaltaToday revealed that the PA had regularised a similar structure in Bahar ic-Caghaq citing the same clause in its Rural Development Design Guidelines, which include a provision for the regularisation of all pre 1978 buildings located outside development zone.

A spokesperson for the PA confirmed that the policy applies to any building located ODZ including coastal structures but specified that “other policies and material considerations” will be taken into consideration when assessing these applications.

In this case the case officer also refers to a policy in the 2006 local plan which foresees an “action plan” to regularize beach rooms in the area. But no such action plan has ever seen the light of the day.  

Moreover in 2011, the case officer assessing applications presented by 20 other boathouse owners who applied to regularise boathouses located on the other side of the bay had recommended the refusal of these applications despite forming part of the same area designated for “coastal recreation” in the local plan.

In this case the case officer insisted that since the local plan only forbids the erection of new boathouses and the extension of old ones until the new action plan is approved, the reconstruction of old boathouses can be permitted on the basis of the rural policy which allows the reconstruction of all pre 1978 buildings. 

In 1993 the Planning Authority had refused a permit for several applications to sanction boathouses in the immediate vicinity of the one now earmarked for reconstruction.

Sources in the PA had expressed concern that the approval of this application would have set a precedent for the regularisation of all boathouses in the San Tumas shanty town.  All they would have had to do is to apply to rebuild the old structures. But the EPC's decision has blocked this attempt and puts the onus back on the government to enact a policy regulating the boathouses in the area as stipulated by the local plan.

The application presented in September last year proposed the demolition of the existing boathouse and its reconstruction with concrete.   The proposed boathouse will consist of a 25-m2 structure with an 11m2 terrace.

The case officer concluded that the permit satisfies the requirements of the Rural Policy and Design Guidelines (2014) since the existing structure is pre 1978, its original use is being retained, and the proposed replacement respects the floor area of the previous building.

But the Environment Resources Authority has objected insisting that the legality of the structure is dubious in view o the smaller footprint shown on the 1968 survey sheet. Moreover according to ERA the development in question together with similar neighbouring development, which is also of dubious legality, has resulted in the take up of ODZ land and “their shanty appearance is spoiling the coastal character of the foreshore.”

ERA insistd that the approval of this development would “create a precedent for the sanctioning of other boathouses and structures.”

Unlike boathouses in Armier those located in Marsaskala are located on private land.

Villa grows at edge of boathouse village

The rural policy is not only been invoked to sanction small boathouses which date back to before 1978 but has resulted in the transformation of an old farmhouse at the edge of the boathouse village in to a villa with pool.

This because back in December 2015 the Planning Authority issued a permit to Gilbert Pace envisioning the cconstruction of a swimming pool, deck area and a rubble wall around an existing farmhouse. 

A permit issued in 2008 had already envisioned the transformation of the original structure to a single dwelling unit with an area of 142m2 at ground floor level and 55m2 at first floor level.

Subsequently in 2012 the PA refused an application envisioning the construction of a swimming pool, deck area and rubble wall and to sanction an illegally developed 167m2 basement and several alterations made to the building as approved in 2008. 

The underlying 167m2 basement extends beyond the farmhouse's built-up footprint, by 25m2.

Moreover the application was deemed unacceptable because previous policies prohibited the rebuilding of large sections of walls of rural buildings to avoid their transformation in to new ones.

Documents presented to the PA showed that part of the original walls were dismantled without a permit.

But in December 2015 under the new policy regime approved in 2014, the PA approved the illegally constructed basement level. The basement was approved on condition that it is used as a cesspit and reservoir.

The rural policy was invoked to allow the construction of a boundary walls around the property and the new pool deck.

Now the same owner has applied again to increase the site boundary by extending the area enclosed by the rubble wall, to shift the location of the cesspit and the reservoir and to create a new access and to construct a tank and pump room under the pool deck.

 The Environment and Resources Authority has objected to the application expressing its frustration at “repetitive piecemeal development” resulting in the further formalization of this rural area.

Nightclub also seeking sanctioning

The ERA is also objecting to an application to sanction the additions made to the Zion bar found including a “chill out” area at the back of the property. ERA noted that the “proposed extension towards the western part of the site could set a precedent for future similar developments.  Noting the presence of illegal beach rooms in the area, the authority insisted that cumulatively these developments have resulted in a significant take up of undeveloped rural lan