Tribunal issues permit for extension and stables

The Commission made express reference to Policy 4.3B of the Policy & Design Guidance on Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables (2008) which inter alia states that stables should be located within the “curtilage” of an existing building.

Indeed, the Commission observed that, in this case, the land occupied by the stables consists of agricultural land which is located over 50 metres away from applicant’s dwelling and separated by other fields enclosed by rubble walls. Even so, the Commission underlined that a previous permit pertaining to the same site was issued on condition that no future structural extensions are permitted.

 In reaction, the applicant appealed the decision before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that new horse stables should be located in such manner as to avoid possible adverse impacts on adjacent dwellings by virtue of noise, smell and visual impact on the landscape.

The applicant went further to state that “curtilage” refers to any land owned by the applicant which is enclosed by a boundary wall. In this context, the applicant contended that any stable development which is located within the immediate precincts is considered adequate, regardless of the distance between the dwelling and the stables.

In addition, the applicant highlighted that the stables are partly located over disturbed land where a reservoir was already permitted by way of a previous permit. With regard to the previous permit condition stating that no future extensions may be entertained, the applicant argued that any restriction imposed through a condition in a development permit may always be varied and changed through a subsequent application.

 On his part, the case officer reiterated that “curtilage” is defined as “a physical boundary wall which defines the curtilage of the same livestock farm unit”, adding that the land in which the stables were to be located is not regarded as part of a livestock farm unit. 

 In its assessment, the tribunal observed that the area over which the stables were to be located was indeed “committed” by way of a previous planning application, whereby a reservoir was permitted above soil level. Moreover, the tribunal concluded that the scale and design of the proposed dwelling extensions were not considered to be visually dominating while the proposed dwelling area did not exceed 150 square metres in terms of footprint (as required by policy PLP 20). Against this background, the tribunal ordered the MEPA to issue the permit.

Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a degree in law

A condition in a previous permit may always be varied through a subsequent application