News | Sunday, 21 June 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Victor Scerri’s bid to get his MEPA permit

Compiled by James Debono

2000 – first application rejected
In 2000 Marthese Said (Victor Scerri’s wife) applied for an outline permit for the rehabilitation and extension of an unused residential farmhouse. The proposal was recommended for refusal as the site is located within an area of archaeological and ecological importance and within a site where no physical development is allowed. Following a site inspection, the DCC refused the application. Refusal was issued to Marthese Said on June 2001.

Reconsideration (accepted despite negative recommendation by experts)
A request for reconsideration was submitted and the Planning Directorate once again called for an outright refusal for the same reasons. The reconsideration report was referred to DCC for determination.
The DCC requested submission of a restoration method statement. The DCC issued the permit on condition that the footprint of the building was to remain the same. The application was approved by DCC in view of submission of evidence that site was used for residential purposes. The outline development permit was issued on 25 September 2002.

Full permit (approved with condition 3)
In 2002 Marthese Said applied for a full development permit for the demolition of the existing building and construction of proposed farmhouse. Once again the application was recommended for refusal because the proposal differed from outline proposal as it called for the total demolition of the farmhouse.
But despite the objection, the application was approved by the DCC in line with the outline development permit and on condition that the development should entail the rehabilitation and not the complete demolition of the farmhouse.
The permit was issued on 2 May 2003, with condition 3 clearly stating that “the total external footprint shall not exceed 95 square metres and the total external floor area shall not exceed 134 square metres” and that “demolition shall be kept to a bare minimum and substantial or total rebuilding may result in forfeiture of this development permission.”

Full permit application to remove condition 3
In 2004, Said applied again for a full development application to delete condition 3. The proposal was recommended for approval on condition that the first part of the condition, relating to the footprint and floor-area not exceeding 95 square meters was retained.
The permit was issued to Said on 11 April 2005 with condition 3 amended to ‘the total external footprint shall not exceed 95 square metres and the total external floor area shall no exceed 134 square metres’.

Application to amend permit (elimination of condition 3)
Said applied again in 2006 to amend this condition. The Planning Directorate insisted the extension to the existing footprint was objectionable in principle. Significantly, the case officer noted that architect Robert Musumeci had applied to amend the permit issued in 2003 “completely ignoring the fact that this permit is no longer valid in that it has been superseded with PA5846/04 approved on 11 April 2005.”
The case officer noted that in the latter application, the architect had attempted to delete condition 3, which specifies the maximum footprint and floor area which can be permitted. “However the permit was issued with the part of condition 3 relating to the footprint and floor area retained.”
The proposal was thus recommended for refusal as previous permits clearly specify that the footprint is to be retained since an increase would run counter to the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies. According to the case officer the application was in breach of Development Control Guidance on ODZ developments which clearly states that proposals which affect fresh land require strong justification, and loss of land of agricultural importance will not be permitted.
The proposal was also deemed to be in breach of the Structure Plan which states that in Level 2 scheduled sites, development is to be limited to the maintenance of already existing structures; and ran counter to Structure Plan policy ARC 3 which states that within areas of archaeological importance, applications for development will be refused.
Yet despite all these objections in a DCC meeting held on 19 September 2007 the project was approved four to one “in view of previous permit and within the area allowed by policy.”
It does not state which policy.
Another DCC meeting held on 16 April 2009 decided that the works should be carried out according to the restoration method statement presented by architect Musumeci.

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.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

EDITORIAL


The day ‘Smart Island’ stood still

INTERVIEW