Dancing studio considered neighbour-compatible

The building in question consists of an elevated terraced house and an underlying garage situated in Mellieha. The Commission further added that the proposal conflicts with Structure Plan policy BEN 1, which seeks to protect the amenity of existing adjoining uses.

In reaction, applicant appealed the decision, stating that the proposed dance-studio is considered as an education facility, thus falling within the parameters surrounding policy NWUS 3 of the Local Plan, which in turn permits educational facilities within residential areas on condition that access to the site is deemed safe and adequate. 

In addition, the applicant maintained that the proposed dancing studio shall cater for a maximum of six students at any one time, who in turn shall be monitored by a full-time tutor. 

In his concluding remarks, applicant stated that he is willing to employ “the necessary noise attenuation measures and necessary silencers on all mechanical ventilation equipment leading to outside with a view to ensure that all sound pressure levels generated by all mechanical and electrical equipment is kept to below the recommended 45dBA.”

On his part, the case officer maintained that from site circumstances, it is evident that the garage is already being used as a dance studio and for this reason, the Tribunal was asked to dismiss the application straight away on account of Article 14(1) of LN 514/10 which expressly states that “where illegal development is present on a site, new development on that same site cannot be considered further.”

In its assessment, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the case officer’s assertions, no illegal activity was being carried out at the moment since the wooden flooring previously used for the dancing activity was recently removed.  

More so, the Tribunal made express reference to Paragraph 7.1 of the Structure Plan, which does not automatically exclude all types of commercial activities within residential areas. Even more so, the Tribunal observed that the proposed activity in this case falls within one of the listed uses that are considered neighbour-compatible, according to the Local Plan. 

The Tribunal concluded that contrary to the case officer’s assertions, no illegal activity was being carried out

In conclusion, the Tribunal also noted that the proposal was limited to only part of the garage whereas the illegal use was previously spread over the entire garage area. Against this background, the Tribunal ordered MEPA to issue the permit on condition that applicant installs the suggested sound mitigation measures.

[email protected]