Last week, the Planning Directorate referred a number of development applications concerning the replacement of old rural structures to the Development Control Commission. One of the requests concerned the demolition, followed by replacement, of an agricultural store (currently in ruins) located in the limits of Siggiewi. A second request proposed the reconstruction of a damaged agricultural store which is located in the limits of Qrendi. A similar application proposed the reconstruction of a dilapidated traditional giren located at Armier, using similar techniques and construction methods. Another development application concerned the demolition of a farmhouse, which is located in the limits of Luqa, followed by the reconstruction of a new building.
The first three applications were recommended for refusal on the pretext that current policy regulating ODZ development fails to cater for replacement of existing buildings. On the other hand, the Luqa farmhouse application was being recommended for approval.
When the applications were discussed before the Commission, all four proposals, including the Luqa application, were dismissed. In fact, when the Luqa farmhouse proposal was discussed, the DCC remarked that such a proposal ran counter to the provisions of Policy and Design Guidance Agriculture, Farm Diversification and Stables, in particular policy 2.3D. The Board also argued that the PLP 20 document, regulating Development Control Guidance: Development outside built-up areas document, specifically prohibits the total demolition of ODZ buildings.
However, it appears that the Development Control Commission are manifestly ignoring the decisions of the Planning Appeals Board. Case law clearly suggests that the structural replacement of legally established structures, which appear on the pre-1967 survey sheets, is acceptable.
Indeed, this rationale finds comfort in several planning decisions. In a recent decision delivered by the Planning Appeals Board in the names Sant Paul vs DCC, the Planning Appeals Board reasoned out that the reconstruction of an old structure is acceptable on the pretext that the said room was visible on the pre-1967 survey sheets: ‘Jirrizulta illi kien hemm kamra u biz-zmien waqghet li l-appellant irid jibni mal-konfini taghha... Il-Bord ha in akkont diversi fatturi; jirrikonoxxi l-fatti li s-sit in kwistjoni ghandu valur kemm ambjentali u valur vizwali. L-appellant hu ‘part-time farmer’ genwin u jahdem raba fl-inhwai bil-qbiela. Huwa fatt li tali kamra zghira tal-ghodda kienet diga’ tezisti kif ikkonfermat minn survey sheets tal-1967’. In a similar case delivered by the Appeals Board Mario Mifsud vs DCC, the Board sanctioned the reconstruction of three old rooms on the pretext that the said rooms are visible on the pre 1967 survey sheets: ‘Illi permezz ta’ din l-applikazzjoni l-appellant qieghed jipproponi illi jissanzjona tlett ikmamar li huwa bena mill-gdid wara li dawk li kien hemm precendentement waqghu biz-zmien. Dawn il-kmamar jinsabu ‘l barra miz-zona tal-izvilupp gewwa sit ta’ valur ekologiku ta’ livell numru 3... Illi huwa pacifiku illi dawn il-kmamar qeghdin jokkupaw is-sit ta’ kmamar pre-ezistenti u li jidhru f’ritratti mill-ajru li ttiehdu fil-1967.’
Planning policy should therefore make specific provisions for the replacement of legally established buildings in ODZs.
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
A second request proposed the reconstruction of a damaged agricultural store which is located in the limits of Qrendi. A similar application proposed the reconstruction of a dilapidated traditional giren located at Armier, using similar techniques and construction methods. Another development application concerned the demolition of a farmhouse, which is located in the limits of Luqa, followed by the reconstruction of a new building.
