Changing a proposal prior to a decision An application to demolish an existing building and reconstruct semi-basement garages and overlying apartments in Hamrun was submitted to MEPA. On assessing the said application, the case officer recommended an outright refusal on a number of planning grounds. Following publication of the case officer’s report (DPAr), the case was referred to the DCC for a decision on 6 July 2009. Prior to the decision, the applicant’s architect stated that his client intended to change the proposal and submit fresh drawings according to current policy. In reaction, the Directorate stated that the assessment was finalised and therefore insisted that in that case, the request should be withdrawn and a fresh application submitted. The case was referred back to the DCC on the 22 September 2009 for further guidance, and the Commission underlined that fresh drawings could be reassessed, even at this late stage, without the need to withdraw the current application. As a result of this decision, a new site notice was re-affixed on site since the proposal had been changed.
The case was in fact reassessed by the Planning Directorate and referred back to the DCC for a decision earlier this week. The application was approved since the proposed modifications adhered to current planning policy. Against this background, it transpires that any application can be modified prior to a decision. In other words, there is nothing in the law which prohibits an applicant to request that his application is modified before a decision is taken.
PA1239/08 – A semi-basement or an entire floor?
An application to erect a full floor and an overlying receded penthouse was being recommended for refusal, since it was argued that the semi-basement read as an entire floor. Current policy states that a floor can be considered as a semi-basement, if the height between the finished pavement level and the underside of the basement slab does not exceed a maximum height of 2 metres, with the exception that the front part above the ramp (up to 6 metres depth) can be allowed with a split level to provide a maximum 2.6 metres headroom. In this particular case, the Directorate argued that the height between pavement level and the underside of the slab reached 2.35 metres, and therefore exceeded the maximum allowable of 2 metres. In consequence, the Directorate recommended that the proposal would result in an elevation which reads as four full floors and an overlying penthouse. To this end, the Directorate reasoned out that the application should be dismissed. When the case was referred to the DCC for a decision earlier this week, the application was approved. In fact, the Board considered that the height of the semi-basement garage doors did not exceed 2 metres and could therefore be interpreted to read as semi-basement garages, even though the policy is concerned with the height between the pavement and the underside of the slab, rather than the height of the garage doors.
It is evident that the DCC’s main concern was to establish whether the proposal was compatible with the adjacent buildings in terms of height. Once it transpired that this was the case, the DCC granted the request even though the Directorate suggested otherwise.
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
In reaction, the Directorate stated that the assessment was finalised and therefore insisted that in that case, the request should be withdrawn and a fresh application submitted. The case was referred back to the DCC on the 22 September 2009 for further guidance, and the Commission underlined that fresh drawings could be reassessed, even at this late stage, without the need to withdraw the current application. As a result of this decision, a new site notice was re-affixed on site since the proposal had been changed.
