MEPA Watch | Sunday, 21 February 2010

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions

A planning application to redevelop a building and reconstruct on the same footprint located within a category 1 rural ODZ settlement was approved by the DCC earlier this week, on the pretext that demolition is permitted within category 1 ODZ rural settlements. The DCC overturned the Directorate’s recommendation, citing that demolition of existing buildings is permitted in category 1 ODZ rural settlements. During the same sitting, the DCC refused another application to demolish an existing building and construct residential development on the same footprint, located in a Category 3 rural boundary, underlining that replacement of Category 3 rural buildings is not permitted.
On closer observation, Local Plans provide that in Category 1 ODZ Settlements, due attention must be given to the design of new buildings within the established boundary, especially those on the edge of the boundary of the settlement, to ensure there are no adverse visual impacts through the creation of new party walls. The same policy states that a side garden of at least 3 metres with an elevation fronting upon it will be required for sites on the boundary’s edge. Moreover, the Local Plan underlines that priority should be given to the rehabilitation of buildings of historical or architectural interest within these settlements. There is nothing in this policy to suggest that demolition of existing buildings is not permitted – the DCC was therefore correct to allow redevelopment in a Category 1 rural settlement.
It is however pertinent to point out that redevelopment of existing buildings is nonetheless allowed within Category 3 settlement boundaries. The Local Plan underlines that re development in such areas is allowable, provided that the new development does not entail fresh land take up and the following conditions are in place – namely, the existing building is not worthy of retention due to its historical and/or architectural merit and/or the contribution it makes to the character of the settlement, the new building occupies the same position on the land in relation to the street as the existing building, and the existing building bears an external footprint of not less than 50 square metres which is covered by a valid development permission or else has been existing prior to 1968 and can be identified in the MEPA 1967 aerial photographs.
It is therefore clear that redevelopment of existing buildings in any established rural ODZ settlement, (including Category 3 boundaries) is permitted by current policy. The decision to refuse an application for the redevelopment of an existing building in a Category 3 rural settlement is incorrect.

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


The great health conundrum

---

INTERVIEW


The personal and the political