MEPA Watch | Sunday, 27 December 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions

A more consistent decision process – George Farrugia vs MEPA
Government has consistently pledged that the upcoming MEPA reform should be rooted in consistency in planning decisions – in other words planning decision bodies are bound by prior decisions. Consistency in decisions cannot be achieved if case officers and other officials ignore case law.
The doctrine of precedent is at the heart of any common law system of rights and duties. During the past year, there were several occasions where the Planning Appeals Boards urged MEPA to ensure that when a planning permit is in place, eventual planning applications which are governed by the same site circumstances should be treated in a similar manner.
In this regard, the most important planning judgement which was delivered during the past year relates to George Farrugia vs MEPA. Mr Farrugia applied for a permit to have a permanent residence in Wied il-Ghasel in the limits of Mosta. MEPA were objecting to this permit since the site lies outside the limits for development defined in the Central Malta Local Plan for Mosta. MEPA also insisted that there was no apparent justification in terms of Structure Plan policy SET 12 as to why a permanent residence cannot be located with an existing or planned residential area. Furthermore, MEPA’s officers underlined that the site falls within the environment of the valley system of Wied il-Ghasel which has been designated as an Area of Ecological Importance and a Site of Scientific Importance, and the proposal is thus in conflict with the aims of paragraph 15.39 of the Structure Plan Explanatory Memorandum, Central Malta Local Plan (policy CG22) and Policy and Design Guidance for agricultural buildings (policies 1.3D, 1.3G and 1.3H) which aim to conserve and protect the landscape features, natural habitats and integrity of the character of the environmental sensitive areas. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Planning Appeals Board observed that the same Authority, which was now objecting to this development, had already approved a similar residence in close proximity!
Against this background, the Planning Appeals Board concluded that there is no reason as to why Mr Farrugia should not be entitled for a similar residence in Wied il-Ghasel: “…minhabba l-ezistenza ta’ permess tal-izvilupp b’mertu identiku mahrug mill-Awtorità stess fuq is-sit immedjatament adjacenti ma’ dik tal-appellant, il-Bord wasal ghall-konklużjoni illi ma hemm ebda raguni il-ghaliex iz-zewg kazijiet ma ghandhomx jigu kkunsidrati bl-istess mod.”
Adherence to precedent helps achieve two objects of the legal order. Firstly it contributes to the maintenance of a regime of stable laws. This stability gives predictability to the law and affords a degree of security for individual rights. Secondly it ensures that the law develops only in accordance with the changing perceptions of the community and therefore more accurately reflects the morals and expectations of the community.
Consistency in planning decision can only be achieved if we ensure that there is strict adherence to precedent.

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.

EDITORIAL


Dedicated to accountability