Tribunal insists on “consistency” in decisions

Reference was made to Structure Plan Policy SET 11 which prima facie prohibits any form of urban development outside existing and committed built-up areas. Even more so, the Planning Commission felt that there are no apparent reasons from a planning point of view as to why the proposed development cannot be located in an area designated for development or in an existing built up area.

On a different note, the commission maintained that the washrooms at roof level (as proposed) are excessive in scale, thus in violation of policy 2.7 of the Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2007 which states that in the case of locations close to ridges, washrooms at roof level are required to be set back by a minimum three metres from the rear boundary wall.

Tribunal concluded that the authority issued a similar permit in view of adjoining commitment

In reaction, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal. In his submissions, the applicant noted inter alia that the MEPA had approved similar developments in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the applicant emphasised that the proposed built footprint would not extend beyond the adjacent party wall.

For its part, the authority reiterated its previous stance, insisting once again that Structure Plan policies SET 11 and SET 12 prohibit any form of urban development (in this case an extended basement) outside the development zone. Moreover, the case officer observed that the proposed washrooms were not set back at least three metres as required by Local Plan Policies GZ-EDGE-1 and GZ-EDGE-2. (The “edge” policies must be read in conjunction with Policy 2.7 of DC2007 which in turn provides that the height limitation on a ridge-edge site is of two floors and every floor should be consecutively set back by three metres from the back elevation.

In assessing the appeal, the tribunal observed that notwithstanding the authority’s objections, the MEPA had approved several buildings featuring more or less similar building depths extending beyond the official scheme boundary. More so, the tribunal observed that a similar request was entertained in 2013 on the pretext that “the depth of the development on site should also be considered in relation to the adjoining commitments”.

Faced by this scenario, the tribunal concluded that the authority acted unjustly in refusing the application, the more so since it issued a similar permit in view of the adjoining commitment. Against this background, the tribunal ordered the authority to issue the permit on condition that the proposed washrooms are adequately receded as required by “edge” policies. 

Robert Musumeci is an architect who also pursued a degree in law [email protected]