Robert Musumeci discusses a controversial Balzan development which is being objected to by the Balzan mayor. Could the solution be that Local Plans should be owned by local councils?
Case Details The case concerns an application to construct a four-storey terrace house development in St Francis Street, corner with St Gabriel Street in Balzan. The proposal is in fact for a full development permit to construct multiple dwelling units and underground garages in a site which consists of an undeveloped infill plot of land accessed from two streets, the said Triq San Gabriel and Triq San Frangisk. According to the Central Malta Local Plan, the area is identified as a ‘Residential Area’ as per Map BZM 1 (and policy CG 07), and has a height limitation of three (3) floors plus semi-basement. The said development has been pending since the year 2004. When the Local Plan for Balzan was endorsed by the then Minister responsible for MEPA in August 2006, the area under review was formally zoned in a way where terraced houses on three floors could be built. Nonetheless, the application was strongly objected by a number of Balzan residents living in the immediate vicinity. These residents, who have been contesting this development since the year 2005, also filed a judicial protest asking MEPA to correct what according to them was allegedly an error contained in the Local Plan. The local council is echoing the claims made by the residents, noting that MEPA had erroneously designated an area which should have been reserved for villas, as an area for terraced houses. In their arguments, the objecting residents are stating that the proposed four storey development would dwarf the existing two-storey villas and bungalows on either side, cutting off sunlight without blending with the vicinity.
Case Officer’s comments The case officer has no option other to make a planning recommendation, in line with the approved existing Local Plans. The area under review is clearly zoned for terraced houses – the only restriction being that a 3m side-curtilage in relation to the adjoining villas is retained. Hence, there is no reason why the case officer should object the proposal. In fact, it results that the case officer rightly recommended the development.
MEPA Board decision When the file was referred to the MEPA board for a decision on Thursday, the board postponed the decision, asking the case officer to elaborate further on the three-metre buffer zone (side cartilage) which is being proposed between the site in examination and the adjoining villas.
Robert Musumeci’s observations Residents may be fully justified in stating that the Local Plan should have never designated the area in question for terraced house development, given the fact that the prevailing development in the area consists mainly of two-storey detached dwellings. However, decision bodies are bound by the provisions of Local Plans and are legally bound to follow scrupulously all that is stipulated in the relative local plans. In this case, the submitted plans are in conformity with the stipulated height limitation as indicated in the Local Plan, namely three floors with semi-basement. It follows that the remaining concern would be to ensure that a three-metre side cartilage is retained on that side which abuts the nearby existing villas in consistence with the provisions of policy 1.1 of DC 2000, which require that development in such cases (where a terraced scheme abuts a villa scheme) should: (a) be compatible with the local context, (b) maintain the existing quality of the environment, (c) contribute positively to the local environment through its form, and (d) respect the scale, bulk and proportions of the neighbouring building.
Henceforth, it is therefore futile to base one’s planning arguments on the fact that the approved Local Plan contains an error. Once a Local Plan is officially endorsed by the minister, there is nothing to suggest that parts of the said plans could be interpreted as erroneous – dura lex et lex.
On the other hand, it is uncontested that local councils should be considered as the most appropriate body to acknowledge what is mostly appropriate in their localities. However it is to be noted that Local Plans are not endorsed by local councils.
It is my advice that the Development Planning Act should be revised in a way that Local Plans are no longer endorsed by the minister in charge. Local Plans should be endorsed by local councils while MEPA’s role should be limited to central decision making. In that way, MEPA should be spared from any claims made by local councils, alleging that the Local Plans have been devised wrongly. At the same time investors are spared from the unwanted uncertainties encountered each time neighbouring objectors are concerned.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
When the Local Plan for Balzan was endorsed by the then Minister responsible for MEPA in August 2006, the area under review was formally zoned in a way where terraced houses on three floors could be built. Nonetheless, the application was strongly objected by a number of Balzan residents living in the immediate vicinity. These residents, who have been contesting this development since the year 2005, also filed a judicial protest asking MEPA to correct what according to them was allegedly an error contained in the Local Plan. The local council is echoing the claims made by the residents, noting that MEPA had erroneously designated an area which should have been reserved for villas, as an area for terraced houses. In their arguments, the objecting residents are stating that the proposed four storey development would dwarf the existing two-storey villas and bungalows on either side, cutting off sunlight without blending with the vicinity. 
