         |
Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions Change of use to public service garages The Planning Directorate recommended that an application to change the use of a private car garage to a public service one should be approved. When the file was referred to the DCC in February of this year, its DCC members pointed out that the Directorate is not being consistent in their recommendations – in other words, the Board members felt that there are times when planning case officers recommend to the same DCC that similar applications should not be approved, on the pretext that such use is not compatible with a residential neighbourhood. An application to allow the change of use of an apartment forming part of a residential block to a dental clinic was being recommended for refusal by the Directorate. The case officer argued that the DCC should reject the application, highlighting that the proposed development would impinge on the residential amenity of the block. When the file was referred to the DCC earlier this week, the application was approved on the pretext that similar applications had already been granted within the same block. This decision is based on the principles of consistency deriving from legal commitment and finds comfort in the legal rationale embraced by the Planning Appeals Boards and our Courts of Law: “Illi peress li l-izvilupp fis-sit adjacenti gie approvat, hu difficli ghal dan il-Bord li jasal ghall-konkluzzjoni differenti” – Joseph Muscat vs l-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar” (A.I.C. (PS) – 18 May 2005). This rationale was reinforced in a more recent judgement : “...qabel xejn u fuq kollox il- Bord kellu jiddeciedi jekk iz-zona kinetx ‘committed’ jew le, aktar u aktar meta gew citati binjiet adjacenti bil-permess u wkoll decizjonijiet tal-Bord tal-Appell dwar l-Ippjanar. Fuq kollox il-kwistjoni ta’ commitment ta’ zona kienet u ghadha relevanti fid-determinazzjoni tal-ligi mill-istess Awtorita` u l-istess Bord u dan meta l-istess tigi sollevata in vista tal-principju ta’ cerimus paribus u wkoll sabiex il-gustizzja mhux biss issir izda tidher li qed issir. “Anna D’Amato vs Kummissjoni ghall-Kontroll tal-Izvilupp” (A.I.C. (RCP) – 28 June 2006). The DCC were therefore correct in their decision.
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 Restaurant review by Moniqie Chambers |
The Directorate were asked to furnish an explanation to this effect, and the case officer reacted by stating that such development may be granted, provided that parking for private vehicles is still available on the same site! The DCC were satisfied with this reaction and approved the proposed development. Following this decision, it is clear that the change of use of a private car garage to a public service garage is acceptable in a residential area, on condition that ample parking space remains within the building block to cater for any remaining development which may exist on site.
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email