Tribunal rejects MEPA assertions as based on ‘mere perception’

The decision was rejected by the Environment and Planning Tribunal.

The Commission underlined that the proposal constitutes bad neighbour development, thus conflicting with Structure Plan policy BEN 1 which seeks to protect the amenity of existing uses. In conclusion, the Commission observed that the proposal would generate a considerable volume of pedestrian movements in an area where “the narrowness of the road might create a danger to this increased pedestrian traffic from oncoming vehicular traffic in the area.”

Following the decision, the applicant submitted an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, contesting the decision. In his submissions, applicant argued that the proposed office is small, having an area of circa 40 square metres, and the anticipated activity with such a small office is therefore “quite limited”.

The applicant, being a lawyer, pointed out that the he has other small offices around the island, adding that his personal experience has shown that offices of such scale are normally meant to serve the people of the locality, most of whom are already familiar with the area.

The applicant went on to state that despite the street in question being narrow, there are other doors to private dwellings and even garages in the area, which in turn should serve as a “natural traffic calming feature”. It was also highlighted that a “traffic calming hump” is located a few metres away from the office in question, “the latter almost stopping all vehicles passing through this road.”

As a final point, applicant submitted that he is willing to “install the necessary signs at the exit from the premises to make all the people using the office aware of any potential dangers.”

For its part, the MEPA reiterated that the street in front of the office door is quite narrow, being only 3.6 metres in width, and the possibility of having a pavement is therefore excluded. In this light, a person exiting from the proposed office would find himself immediately on the carriageway and thus prone to “accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians.”

In its assessment, the tribunal observed that the office is very small, adding that the authority’s contention in the sense that the proposed activity would generate additional traffic is based on mere perception. The tribunal further maintained that contrary to the commission’s conclusions, MEPA’s Transport Directorate had held that “given that the street is narrow, this acts as a natural traffic calming feature, where speeding, which would affect pedestrian safety, cannot really take place.”

Authority’s contention that the proposed activity would generate additional traffic is based on mere perception

 Against this background, the tribunal ordered MEPA to issue the permit.

Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect with a degree in law

[email protected]