         |
Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions An affidavit constitutes legal evidence… even at MEPA An application to carry out a series of alterations in a structure which lies in ODZ was being recommended for refusal by the Directorate. The request also included the sanctioning of a demolished room, which according to the architect who submitted this application, was in an irreversible state of repair and had to be replaced. A gaming shop in a residential area In another decision, MEPA gave the green light for the change of use of a class 4 shop to a class 9 gaming shop. Until recently, MEPA was refusing such applications on the grounds that the Lotteries and Gaming Authority were objecting to such proposals. However, it appears that these permits are once again being approved by the Planning Authority. Although one could contest the decision on moral grounds, the DCC were correct in their assessment since the current Local Plans indicate clearly that gaming shops are allowable in residential areas. It is ultimately up to the gaming authorities to issue the necessary license conditions regulating operators. An extra floor permitted An application to sanction the height of a building which was above the height permitted by the Local Plan was being recommended for dismissal by the Planning Directorate. Notwithstanding, the DCC upheld the architect’s request since the building in question, although exceeding the permitted height limitations, is located adjacent to a building of the same physical height. This planning decision continues to prove that height assessments cannot be carried out in isolation. The contextual considerations cannot be ignored, particularly if the proposed building envelope will conceal the otherwise exposed adjoining blank party walls. The DCC should therefore be lauded for this decision. An application to carry out the sensitive restoration of an old house and extend same to an already approved restaurant in a UCA, resulting in a commercial area of 220m² was referred to the DCC in September 2009. The DCC immediately flagged concern, stating that the proposed commercial area was excessive when one considers that the site lies in a residential area. The application file was however referred back to the DCC this week and approved. It is acknowledged that restoration works involve a heavy financial investment - at the same time, our historic towns can only be enhanced if at the end of the day, such costly interventions are rendered commercially feasible.
Any comments? |
 |
EDITORIAL Fairness in regulation
MT Surveys Bleak times – depression at the Grand Harbour Budget 2010 – Raise taxes or cut benefits? Only 35% will be taking a holiday this summer Corned beef? a matter of class Labour poised for absolute majority Labour Party heading for absolute majority EU MEMBERSHIP – FIVE YEARS LATER |
Despite the strong objections from the Planning Directorate, stating that the structure is located in a sensitive ODZ area, the application was approved by the DCC on the pretext that the structure was built prior to 1967. The DCC also commented that the affidavits produced by the applicant confirmed that the building was in fact a residence, and hence there was no reason to reject the residential status of the application. Once again, we have a DCC decision which was driven by the fact that applicant bears a vested right since the building was already in existence prior to 1967. Of equal relevance, this decision proves that affidavits constitute a legal proof in planning decision fora.
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email