MEPA obliged to “elaborate” on refusing an application

In its decision the Authority observed that applicant did not accede to its request to submit fresh drawings showing a lowered perimeter wall and no projection at roof level. At the same time, it was stated that the drawings showed a sanitary facility which was not indicated in the original drawing submissions. Moreover, the Board underlined that Dwejra is located within a Special Area of Conservation of International Importance and of high scenic value, adding that upholding such a request would go against “the public interest and proper planning”. 

As a final point, the Authority remarked that the proposal cannot be considered further unless the illegal development (in this case the boundary wall and the roof projection) is first sanctioned or removed in synch with regulation 14 of Legal Notice 514 of 2010. 

MEPA may not simply state that a proposal runs counter to “public interest and proper planning” without providing details

Eventually, applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that fresh plans showing the removal of the projection and lowering of the wall were indeed submitted in line with the Authority’s request. But even so, applicant observed that three years prior to its final decision which was taken in the year 2011, the MEPA Board had stated (in 2008) that the sanctioning of the boathouse could be approved “on condition that the applicant submits revised drawings, to reduce the height of the boundary wall and the projection at roof level”. 

Once these drawings were indeed submitted, applicant contended that the Authority was obliged to issue the permit.  Applicant made also reference to other commitments in the area and requested the case officer to “explain the manner in which the applicant’s request differed to similar approved developments”.

For its part, the Tribunal confirmed that during the application process, albeit at a very late stage, applicant had indeed submitted fresh plans  showing a lowered wall and no projection as requested by MEPA itself. 

Quoting from the landmark decision in the names ‘Reverendu Joseph Tabone kontra l-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar’, the Tribunal held that the Authority may not conclude that a proposal runs counter to “public interest and proper planning” without providing supporting arguments. In this case, the Authority failed to give solid reasons as to why the proposed sanctioning ran against the public interest. 

Against this background, the Tribunal requested the MEPA to issue the permit subject to a planning obligation equivalent to a 4,612. Nonetheless, the Tribunal stated that the sanitary facilities as shown on plans were not being approved. 

[email protected]