MEPA Watch | Sunday, 02 May 2010

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Robert Musumeci’s analysis of MEPA decisions

Change of use within the same class
A development application was submitted to MEPA in order to upgrade a licensed operating bar into to snack bar. The idea behind this application is to obtain clearance for the preparation and serving of food within an already licensed bar. The Directorate objected to the request, stating that the development would result in an increase in traffic congestions. When the case was referred to the DCC for a final decision, the case officer’s negative recommendation was overturned on the pretext that “parking provisions are already provided on site.” In other words, the DCC justified its decision by inferring that the site in question was already committed for class 6 commercial use.
The Commission further pointed out that the proposal, if approved, would not change the traffic patterns or increase the incoming traffic in the area. Moreover, the DCC underlined that bars and snack bars fall within the same class 6 use. Indeed, Legal Notice 53 of 1994 (Development Planning Act, 1992, (Act No. 1 of 1992) Development Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1994), regulating use classes, specifically provides that any change of use falling within the same class does not require a development permission in the first place. In this case, the said Legal Notice does not place any distinction in class between bars, snack bars, restaurants or gelaterias. The DCC were therefore correct to issue the permit on the grounds that bars and snack bars fall within the same use classes order.

Change in proposal at decision stage
An application to carry out a minor extension to a dwelling unit and sanction a boundary wall as built was submitted to MEPA. Although the DCC found no objection in relation to the proposed extension, it felt that the existing rubble wall (which was being requested to sanction) was not constructed in accordance with the provisions of the legal notice regulating construction of rubble walls. The Board invited applicant to modify the rubble wall in accordance with the said legal notice. Drawings were modified according to the Board’s request and the proposal was subsequently approved by the DCC. This particular case study goes to prove that proposals can essentially be modified at decision stage, irrespective of whether the original proposal was intended to sanction existing works.
.

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.

Download the MaltaToday newspaper advertising rates in PDF format

Download the Gourmet Today advertising rates in PDF format

EDITORIAL

A nation that never learns

---

INTERVIEW

The grime-sweeper

---

MT Surveys

The verdict on Joseph Muscat