Court orders Tribunal to evaluate quoted precedents

Essentially, the proposal consisted of the demolition of an existing two storey terraced house followed by the construction of eight individual duplex units over ground and first floor levels with basement garages and washrooms in an ODZ category settlement. During the application process, the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee had, in fact, signalled that the site in question qualifies as a Strategic Open Gap, and that the development would have resulted in “intensification of an urban type of development” in an otherwise protected area.

In his appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, the applicant insisted that the original proposal was considerably scaled down. But even so, the applicant made reference to two permits, which according to him constituted a “commitment” in support of his proposal. Despite the applicant’s arguments, the tribunal confirmed nonetheless the Commission’s decision, reiterating that the proposal was unacceptable in principle.

In its decision, the tribunal highlighted that the development may never be justified in terms of Structure Plan policy SET 12 which, in turn, allows for development outside the designated boundaries in exceptional circumstances – namely when a development must necessarily be situated in a non-built up area.

Even more so, the tribunal took note of the fact that the proposed development encroaches over an area which is designated as an Area of Agricultural Value and a Valley Protection Zone as rightly pointed out by the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee. In conclusion, the tribunal maintained that the proposed floor area, height, number of rooms and site coverage remained of an excessive scale, leading to “overdevelopment of the site”, which in turn would also be in violation of the  interests of the amenity of the area and therefore counter to Structure Plan policy BEN 1.

Court concluded that the tribunal did not comment about the two permits quoted by applicant

In reaction, the applicant filed an appeal before the civil courts, insisting that the tribunal failed to take cognizance of the plans as amended, which purportedly show a less intensive development.

In its assessment, the court concluded that the appellant was correct to assert that the tribunal did not assess the latest drawings, adding further that the tribunal failed to comment in regard to the two permits quoted by the applicant, and which in turn could possibly constitute a valid “commitment” in the eyes of law.

Indeed, one of the permits quoted by the applicant allegedly relates to a permit, whereby development was granted outside the designated boundary on condition that “compensatory open spaces” are provided within the area zoned for development within the same site precincts.

Against this background, the court refrained from probing into the merits of the case and ordered the tribunal to  reassess the case.

[email protected]

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