A store instead of a shop A proposal to change the use of a shop (located in a quiet residential area), which was already covered by a permit, to a store was being recommended for refusal by MEPA’s Directorate. The Directorate insisted that stores should be located in designated industrial areas. Incidentally, no mention was given to the fact that small storage facilities are considered to play a vital role in residential areas in order to reduce the potential incoming traffic from neighbouring localities. When the file was referred to the DCC Board for a decision, the Board unanimously agreed that the permit should be issued, notwithstanding the Directorate’s strong insistence. In their justification, the DCC noted that the existing property (that is the approved shop) was in effect a shop which required on site storage facilities anyway. After all, the Structure Plan itself advocates the promotion of dual use and multi use of land and facilities. It follows that since the existing shop was already complemented with storage facilities, there was no sufficient reason to refuse the new request – in other words, the proposal did not constitute a significant material change. In assessing planning requests involving commercial operations, MEPA’s approach should thus remain flexible. The DCC should be lauded for this decision.
Exceptions in villa areas
An application to sanction various structural alterations which were carried out on a villa in Triq Calleja Swieqi was being recommended negatively on the pretext that the works indicated in the application were not compliant to standard design regulations. The architect reacted to the negative report by stating that previous DCC Boards had approved a number of planning applications for similar works in the immediate vicinity.
In reaction to architect’s statements, the Board approved the application. Prima facie, this decision might appear to have created a dangerous precedent since the DCC have sanctioned works which are in conflict with standard design policies regulating villa areas.
However, one must underline that planning regulations provide a leeway for decision bodies to issue permits in villa areas which are not in line with regulations. This rationale finds comfort in the last paragraph of Policy 3.2 of DC 2007 which provides that where a particular localised area (a street or block) has been developed otherwise than in accordance with the standard requirements, new development in that area shall conform to the requirements/conditions which have been applied to the adjoining development.
It is therefore clear that the DCC were correct in their decision. Any eventual attacks on the DCC in relation to this decision will therefore prove futile.
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 file was referred to the DCC Board for a decision, the Board unanimously agreed that the permit should be issued, notwithstanding the Directorate’s strong insistence. In their justification, the DCC noted that the existing property (that is the approved shop) was in effect a shop which required on site storage facilities anyway. After all, the Structure Plan itself advocates the promotion of dual use and multi use of land and facilities. It follows that since the existing shop was already complemented with storage facilities, there was no sufficient reason to refuse the new request – in other words, the proposal did not constitute a significant material change. In assessing planning requests involving commercial operations, MEPA’s approach should thus remain flexible. The DCC should be lauded for this decision.
