An application was submitted to Mepa requesting the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a replacement dwelling. The building in Xaghra (Gozo) lies just outside the limits of development and has access from an alley off Sant Anton Street.

The Planning Directorate reasoned that the proposal should not be entertained due to the fact that the request contemplated the complete demolition of an existing structure and the construction of a new residential building with blank party walls facing the Outside Development Zone. In this respect, the Directorate cited Structure Plan Policy BEN2 to justify its position. BEN 2 in fact underlines that development will not normally be permitted if it is not likely to maintain the good visual integrity of the area in which it is located. The application was further assessed with adherence to policy GZ-EDGE-3 contained in the Gozo and Comino Local Plan, which states that the building (depth on edge-of-development boundaries) should be limited to 25m from the official street alignment. In this respect, the Directorate stated that the proposed development was of an excessive scale, leading to over development of the site.

The Directorate also pointed out that the proposed development is unacceptable since it does not comply with policy 3.8 of Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2005. In so doing, the Directorate considered the request as an internal development with an access of width that is below the limitations imposed by regulations.

In the first instance, the Development Control Commission followed the Directorate’s recommendation, on the pretext that such development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development which would, on a cumulative basis, lead to a significant overall change in the appearance of the locality to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.

The architect consequently filed a request for reconsideration before the DCC, stating that the application should be approved on the premise that the alley was already committed with an existing building. The architect also made reference to documentary evidence in the Xaghra Parish Registry, indicating that the building was used for habitation until the year 1920.

The Directorate, not much convinced that the building under consideration was used for habitation, reasoned that it was very unlikely that the original building could have accommodated seven people as was indicated in the Parish Registry. The Directorate stated that it was therefore highly improbable that the document from the Parish Register attesting residential status refers to the building in question.

Notwithstanding the Directorate’s firm stand, the DCC granted the permit at reconsideration stage, prior to which the architect was requested to submit fresh plans reducing the size of dwelling from the rear side in order to reduce impact on ODZ side. In order to justify its decision, the Board underlined that contrary to the Directorate’s opinion, it was convinced that the building was in fact a habitable dwelling. The DCC further stated that the proposed extension, as amended, was minimal in relation to the existing building, and was not considered to have a great visual impact.

This decision gives rise to a number of considerations.

Although current policy (Policy Design Guidance for Development Outside Built-up Areas: Section 8.1 – Conversion of building in rural areas) states that only buildings of architectural or historic interest in ODZs (and worthy of retention and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding) are eligible for conversion, the DCC approved the permit on the premise that the construction had an established residential status way back in time.

Although no formal policy exists to date justifying the demolition of dwellings in ODZs, case law suggests the need that Mepa formulates a clear policy framework allowing the replacement of buildings bearing a residential status dating prior to 1968 (the time when evidence of planning permits were not required to state that a building is compliant to planning rules). Consistent with DCC’s decision, dwellings that do not feature architectural or historic interest should be eligible to their replacement, irrespective of where the site is located. The onus in such cases should be directed to ensure that the replacement building constitutes a better landmark in terms of massing and architectural design that blends with the rural landscape. The citizen’s fundamental right to enjoy one’s property should not be superseded by planning rules. The DCC’s decision to approve such a request was therefore legitimate.

Robert Musumeci is an architect. His main area of practice focuses on MEPA development applications.

[email protected]