Applicant maintains that fine is not due

Eventually, the said application was approved at reconsideration stage subject to applicant submitting fresh drawings showing the removal of the present sign and the payment of a fine equivalent to €792.02 on account of the sanctioning request.

In turn, applicant submitted fresh drawings as requested. But even so, applicant failed to effect the requested payment, in consequence to which the permit was not issued.

Applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, maintaining that the fine was not due since the screen was indeed removed in accordance with the Commission's request. Applicant concurrently contended that it "is unfair to pay a fine and at the same time being requested to remove the same screen, just to have reinstalled once the permit is granted". 

Applicant further observed that "similar screens have been placed in prominent buildings such as the University roundabout, capturing the eye of the drivers".

For its part, MEPA reiterated that the fine was still due and requested the Tribunal to dismiss applicant's appeal.

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the location relates to an Entertainment Priority Area. Even so, the Tribunal did not delve into the issue as to whether the fine was indeed due since the "illegality" was allegedly removed as manifestly shown in the photos that were submitted by applicant.

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the development relates to an Entertainment Priority Area where display signs were permitted. The Tribunal did not delve into the issue as to whether the fine was still due once the "illegality" was allegedly removed. Indeed, the Tribunal held that the Authority acted correctly and gave applicant a final ultimatum to effect payment.

[email protected]