Court orders Tribunal to investigate whether there is ‘commitment’

A planning application entitled “To demolish existing rooms and construct a two (2) storey house with pool” in Nadur was turned down by the Environment and Planning Commission after it was held that “the proposed development has its only access from a private lane and therefore would result in an internal development in UCA and therefore runs counter to Policy 3.8B of DC 2007.”  (Policy 3.8B militates against development without street frontage in Urban Conservation Areas)

In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that the application was indeed recommended favourably by the Planning Directorate, only to be turned down by the Commission. Applicant stated that the “private lane” already serves as an access to three other dwellings, adding “had the alley been schemed in the local plan, the proposal would have been approved.”  

Applicant further maintained “in Gozo there are many similar small alleys that were not schemed in the local plan”. In this case the alley was existing and the proposal was not giving rise to a new internal development, which is out of synch with the streetscape and the “morphology” of the surrounding historic areas. 

In his note of submissions, applicant made conclusive reference to other planning applications carrying similar merits. 

On its part, the Tribunal observed that that the proposal involves the demolition of two rooms and the construction of a two-storey house with pool with restricted access. The Tribunal further highlighted that the permit concerning the neighbouring dwelling was justified since, in that case, the previous building carried a residential status. In contrast, the existing structures consist of dilapidated rooms. Against this background, the Tribunal confirmed the decision.

Applicant felt aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and lodged an appeal before the Civil Courts, contending inter alia that the Tribunal failed to make any reference to the fact that the site in question is located close to three buildings, access to which is from the same alley. Indeed, the Tribunal commented about one of the (three) dwellings but failed to establish whether the presence of three dwellings constitutes sufficient commitment to justify the proposed development in terms of the Local Plan.

In its assessment, the Court observed that the Tribunal should have specifically delved into the matter raised by appellant (in this case, the applicant), the outcome of which could eventually have a bearing on the determination of the said application.  Against this background, the Court ordered the Tribunal to reassess the case.