Judge orders planning appeals to be heard again

Two judgments delivered by Mr Justice Raymond Pace overturned decisions of the Planning Appeals Board and ordered that the cases be heard again by the board.

The court heard an appeal lodged by Paul Polidano from a stop and enforcement notice issued against him.

The Malta Environmental and Planning Authority (Mepa) had issued the notice against Mr Polidano alleging that he had constructed a villa outside a development zone.

Mr Polidano appealed on the basis that the notice had not been issued in accordance with the law.

However, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the notice with the result that Mr Polidano had to demolish the villa, which was his residence.

Mr Polidano then appealed to the Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Pace.

In its judgment, the court found Mr Polidano's appeal involved points of law and therefore the courts had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court added that the board had failed to seriously examine Mr Polidano's submission that the notice was null as it was not issued according to law.

According to Mr Polidano, the notice lacked various requisites stipulated by law and did not contain a site plan. The alleged illegal development could not be identified from the notice.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the board could not simply confirm the notice on the basis that Mr Polidano had failed to prove he had a valid development permit.

Mr Polidano's claim that the notice was null and void had first to be decided by the board. The court therefore upheld the appeal and annulled the board's decision.

The case was remitted to the board for a decision on Mr Polidano's submissions.

In the other case decided by Mr Justice Pace, the company Polidano Bros Ltd had appealed to the board following the issue of an enforcement notice.

The company claimed that the notice had been issued on the basis of an allegation that a villa had been built outside the development zone. However, the company claimed it was neither the owner nor the developer of the site, nor was it the occupier of the site. As a result the company claimed that there was no juridical relationship.

The board had agreed that the company was not connected with the site but confirmed the issue of the notice against Polidano Bros Ltd.

The company then appealed to the Court of Appeal which ruled that the board had failed to consider the company's pleas. It said this was a very serious fault for the board had completely failed to address the merits upon which the appeal was based.

The court upheld the company's appeal and annulled the board's decision. The case was remitted to the board to be heard anew.

Lawyers Michael Sciriha and Joanne Vella Cuschieri were counsel to appellants.