Wardija swimming pool allowed to be ‘displaced’

The planning application was “to displace” the swimming pool that had already been approved (but not constructed) within the boundaries of the Wardija residence by virtue of a previous planning permit. It was turned down by the Environment and Planning Commission after it held that the proposal runs counter to the policy document “Development Control Policy – Swimming Pools Outside Development Zone” of January 2000.

The Commission cited paragraph 5.1 which specifies that “the construction of new swimming pools shall be within the curtilage of existing buildings and shall not be within sites of ecological, geological, archaeological, cultural or historical importance.”

Moreover, the same policy goes on to state that ODZ swimming pools “shall be adequately screened from view from outside the site.” On such basis, the Commission contended that accepting this development would prejudice the main objective of the swimming pool policy, which aims at containing the spatial spread of development, minimising the take-up of land and limiting the extent of visual intrusion Outside Development Zone.

In reaction, applicant lodged an appeal against the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting inter alia that “the need to displace the pool came up due to the close proximity of the approved pool to the site’s boundary.” Applicant contended that “a pool which is so close to the site’s boundary can be a threat for the privacy of the eventual users and provides less area for landscaping to screen the pool.”  In his arguments for appeal, applicant further highlighted the he was already in possession of a valid permit to construct a swimming pool within his home precints, adding that the new location is better shielded by rubble walls and landscaping. 

On his part, MEPA’s case officer reiterated that the new location falls outside the “curtilage” of the building as required by policy, since it lies within an open field. The case officer further contended that the site in question falls within an area of high ecological and landscape value, concluding that the intervention would result in an adverse visual impact on the rural landscape.

In its assessment the Tribunal held that the applicant was already in possession of a permit to construct a swimming pool. But even more so, the topographic characteristics of the proposed new location (subject of this appeal) were prima facie similar to those pertaining to the site relative to the permit already in hand.

In addition, it was observed that both locations are more or less equidistant from the applicant’s dwelling. Against this background, the Tribunal ordered the Authority to issue the permit on condition that a bank guarantee is made so as to ensure that the applicant carries out a landscaping scheme which he himself had proposed as part of his proposal.

Robert Musumeci is an architect who also pursued a degree in law 

[email protected]