An appeal to the Environment and Planning Tribunal regarding a Mensija development permit claims that MEPA has gone against certain policies.

The appellants claimed that the first issue was zoning. “Contrary to all logic and the zoning provisions, the applicant is proposing two floors and a semi-basement level in that part of the site zoned for terraced house development, and three floors and a semi-basement level in the landlocked garden which overlooks existing villa development,” the appeal claims.

The permit allows for the owner “to demolish dilapidated rooms and construct semi-basement garage plus overlying dwelling including ancillary facilities and pool”. The site in questions consists of a small part situated in an area zoned for terraced houses, having access to a landlocked garden situated within a villa area.

The appellants quoted from the Environment and Development Act, stating that the law binds Mepa to apply Local Plan policies strictly. Referring to a particular article within the law, the appeal read that the law “is clear in stating that the Authority is bound by law to apply its plans, including its Local Plans, and has no right to modify the height limitation set out in a plan. This is exactly what the Directorate is attempting to do, in recommending the breach of its own approved plans, thereby prejudicing my clients’ rights”.

One of the residents said that they are ready and willing to go to court, and if necessary, the European Court.

Another of the points surrounds the site curtilage, where the appellants feel that the permit does not follow the Policy and Design Guidance 2007. They said that the minimum site curtilage of 3 m is not being followed.

The appellants also contest parts of the development in terms of typography, and say that the permit contradicts the basic principle of design, respecting the contours of land.

“This permit contradicts this basic principle since the levels have been adapted so as to achieve a plateau that in reality should be a split level. This has created a higher podium on which the proposed side wall is to be constructed”.  As a result, they said, this aggravates the lack of transition that should have been created between the two zones within the same site. The appellants also explained that the site is situated on a slope, with the garden below street level.  “This will result in existing site levels being substantially increased, resulting in further visual intrusion and overlooking with respect to adjacent buildings at a lower level and a higher boundary wall”.

The appellants quoted from the Structure Plan policy BEN 2 , that read that “development will not normally be permitted if, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, it is incompatible with the good urban design, natural heritage and environmental characteristics of existing or adjacent uses, and is unlikely to maintain the integrity of the area in which it is located. There will be a presumption against development which does not generally observe the design guidelines issued by the Planning Authority for built-up areas”. Following this, the appellants said in their appeal that they have no doubt that the Authority, in attempting to accommodate the appellant, will be permitting the construction of a building which is incompatible with the visual integrity of the area, and contrary to its own policies.

Lastly, the appellants also argue against the height allowed for the side-garden wall, stating that such a wall has a 3.4m limit. The permit, however, will see the wall raised to 8.5m. While Mepa justified this by stating that applications for walls in excess height of 3.4m can be permitted if it would improve the privacy of those around them, the appeal read, the appellants feel it would be a huge imposition on third parties and create concern over its maintenance.