Garage next to ODZ dwelling refused

At issue was a planning application to construct a one-storey garage next to an ODZ dwelling outside the limits of Dingli.

The request was turned down by the Planning Commission after it held that the proposal could not be justified, there being “no apparent reason from a planning point of view as to why the proposed garage could not be located in an area within the established development schemes designated for such development.”

The Commission added that the proposed development was incompatible with the Thematic Objective 1.10 and Rural Objective 3 of the Strategic Plan for Environment & Development which “only allow for rural development which is legitimate or necessary”.

Subsequently, applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that his request should have been acceded to.

In his appeal, applicant (now, appellant) conceded that it was correct to state that his plot was located outside the development boundary. Nevertheless, applicant contended that “in no way could the area be described as a rural area”.

To substantiate his arguments, applicant submitted a scaled block plan to demonstrate that the site was surrounded by buildings on three sides and a farm building was envisaged to be built on the remaining side.

Applicant contended that the area was “heavily committed with development” and, thus, it could not qualify as a rural area.

For its part, the Authority held to its previous position, reiterating that “the site subject to the appeal was actually outside the limits to development and should not be considered on its own merits but also on the presumption that this forms part of an internal garage court that would be developed outside the limits to development”.

Furthermore, the case officer noted that access to the garage was only possible via a property not owned by applicant.

Finally, the case officer went to point out that contrary to applicant’s claims, the site in question was not surrounded by development.

In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that the garage and applicant’s residence were interlinked. Having said that, the Tribunal underlined that notwithstanding appellant’s insistence that the site was surrounded by nearby commitment, the most immediate buildings were situated 70 metres away.

For this reason, the Tribunal felt that, were it to be approved, the proposal would only serve to encourage ribbon development outside the schemed boundaries.

Against this background, permission was refused.