         |
Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions Under construction – a permit up for renewal, and a change in Local Plan policy A 2004 permit was due to expire in February 2010. The applicant decided to submit a fresh application in order to renew this permit for the construction of a semi-basement garage and overlying dwellings. Although construction works were already underway (the semi-basement has been constructed), the Directorate argued that the 2004 permit should not be renewed since semi-basements were no longer permitted by the Local Plan which came into force in 2006. Vested rights A planning application for the change of use of a garage to a beauty salon in a UCA (Urban Conservation Area) was being recommended for approval by the case officer. When the case was referred to the DCC in September, it transpired that the case officer made a positive recommendation even though the shop front was made of aluminum (in UCAs, all external apertures are to be made of timber). The DCC was concerned to the extent that an explanation was demanded from the case officer to this effect. In his reply, the case officer observed that the DCC had approved a previous application to sanction external aluminum apertures on the same site way back in 2001. Consequently, the DCC had no other option but to approve the application, even though the façade featured elements which are not sympathetic with the general characteristics of a village core. This decision goes to prove that once a permit is issued, the underpinning merits cannot be ignored in future applications. How to approach a policy An application where a roof structure was not built according to standard dimensions was still approved by the DCC, on the pretext that the said structure was not visible from street level. This decision continues to prove that quantitative standards may be relaxed in those cases where the overriding policy objectives are still attained – the remit of the DCC is to ensure that planning objectives are achieved (in this case the DCC had to ensure that the roof structures do not constitute a negative visual impact); not to ensure that designs are perfectly in line with quantitative standards.
Any comments? |
 |
EDITORIAL MT Surveys Robert Arrigo ‘most wanted’ for minister Cabinet thrives, but Fenech and Gatt hit rock bottom 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 |
In other words, the Directorate was suggesting that the already constructed semi-basement should be demolished, in line with the current Local Plan provisions. When the case was referred to the DCC for a decision, the members of the board immediately reasoned out that there was a firm commitment on site, and the permit should be renewed for another five years despite the provisions set out in the current Local Plan. Against this background, it is now acknowledged that should an applicant make a request to renew a development permit within the validity period in accordance with the provisions 33(3) of the Planning Act, and there is a firm commitment on site in that part of the development which may give rise to a conflict between the existing policies and the previous policies governing the original development permit, the principle of the previous permit will prevail. 
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email