Planning control application done away with

A 2009 planning application for the sanctioning of a number of variations that were not carried out in accordance with a permit that was approved in the 1980s by the Planning Area Permit Board (the PAPB was entrusted with the processing of planning permits prior to 1992) was turned down by the Environment and Planning Commission on the pretext that the building in question encroached beyond the official street alignment, occupying a small part (0.38 metres) of the road.

During the application process, the Planning Directorate suggested that prior to submitting such an application, the applicant is required to submit a planning control application in order to sanction the alignment (as built). Having said that, a planning control application entails obtaining prior consent from all neighbouring residents in the same street. To this end, the applicant failed to submit a planning control application as requested, insisting that it was both impractical and impossible on his part to secure a written 'no objection' from neighbouring residents, many of whom were 'unknown' garage owners.

The applicant therefore appealed the Commission's decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that MEPA's request to file a planning control application was unreasonable and stated that he was never made aware that his property extended beyond the road alignment. Moreover, the applicant observed that the buildings flanking his property were constructed linearly along the same alignment, adding that the authorities had never raised any objection.

Initially, MEPA reacted by reiterating that the applicant's property was not built in line with the official street alignment, since it encroached onto the approved road by 0.38 metres. For this reason, MEPA maintained once again that a planning control application is required to sanction the alignment as built, in which case consent of the neighbouring owners is a complete must. In addition, the case officer noted that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide on alignment issues. For his part, the applicant stuck to his guns, maintaining that he was reluctant to submit a planning control application.

Unexpectedly, at a later stage (this was in 2012), the Authority decided to issue an 'alignment verification plan', by way of which it dropped its objections in relation to the alleged illegal encroachment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal sanctioned the development "as built" on the strength of the alignment verification plan issued by MEPA in consequence to the appeal, noting further that the Authority had in any case never issued an enforcement order despite its allegations.