Illegal construction built by third parties
Earlier this week, an application to retain a franka boundary wall bordering a field in Gozo was referred to the DCC for second hearing. Various works were already approved in 2009 on condition that this wall is demolished and the franka stone replaced with random rubble. In fact, a bank guarantee was imposed by the DCC to ensure the boundary wall is reconstructed in rubble according to the legal provisions of Legal Notice 160/97 (Rubble Walls and Rural Structures, Regulations 1997). These regulations stipulate that such walls should in fact not contain any mortar and their stability should rely on the expert choice of suitably-shaped stones and the skill of the mason. In other words, construction of rubble walls is to be carried out using random rubble stones which stand by gravity and without the use of mortar. Moreover, the permit underlined that the use of the site should be limited to agricultural use. However, a request for reconsideration was filed by the architect acting on behalf of his applicant, whereby the architect stated that the existing franka boundary wall along the street was indeed carried out by a government department. To this end, the applicant felt that he should not be compelled to undertake the works at his expense. Moreover, the architect insisted that part of the site was committed for industrial use by virtue of an old permit which was issued in 1983. Against this background, the architect claimed that the DCC was wrong to impose that the entire site is restored to agricultural use.
On its part, the Directorate insisted that the request for reconsideration was not acceptable – according to the Directorate, the conditions imposed by the DCC were reasonable, and enforceable. The Directorate reiterated that the site lies within a sensitive area, and restoration according to current regulations secured the optimal way forward.
When the case was discussed before the Development Control Commission, the members unanimously agreed that it was unfair for an applicant to be held responsible for illegal works, when it transpired that these works were constructed by third parties (in this case, the Ministry of Gozo). Against this background, the condition which was previously imposed on applicant to reconstruct the wall in dry rubble was deleted by the Board. This planning decision is in consonance with the provisions of PA Circulars 2/96 and 2/98, which state in no unclear terms that applicants should not be held responsible of any site illegalities if it transpires that such illegalities were executed by third parties and can be technically removed without hindrance.
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
However, a request for reconsideration was filed by the architect acting on behalf of his applicant, whereby the architect stated that the existing franka boundary wall along the street was indeed carried out by a government department. To this end, the applicant felt that he should not be compelled to undertake the works at his expense. Moreover, the architect insisted that part of the site was committed for industrial use by virtue of an old permit which was issued in 1983. Against this background, the architect claimed that the DCC was wrong to impose that the entire site is restored to agricultural use.
