An appeals tribunal lashed out at the planning authority for taking a decision beyond its powers and changing a recommendation on scheduling for a Marsaxlokk property without informing the applicant.

The Environment and Planning Tribunal revoked a refusal to build a residential complex and ordered the case file to be sent back to the planning authority.

The process started in 2002 when the applicant had applied for an outline permit to demolish part of a house and build a residential complex in Żejtun Road. The plans included underground parking and a site situated in an urban conservation area.

The planning authority had refused the request in 2011, saying it went against urban conservation areas policies as it would remove the “existing open space (green lungs), which is vital”. It would also cause traffic problems in the area.

The proposed development was “incompatible” with the area’s characteristics, urban design and its surroundings. It would “detract from the traditional urban skyline” because buildings higher than two storeys were not allowed in the area, Mepa said.

The site was a Grade 2 listed building and the proposed development “involves the total demolition and can’t be positively recommended. The property is an interesting example of 19th century vernacular architecture that contributes to the character of the streetscape of the road leading up to the church”.

The development watchdog pointed out that the site had a large back garden and this was fundamental to the character of urban conservation areas, being the only way through which surrounding residences got air and light.

The crucial issue of demolishing the building was a “primary consideration” that led the planning directorate to recommend a review of the scheduling.

The crucial issue of demolishing the building was a primary consideration

In 2002, the authority started the process of revising the scheduling and reached an agreement with the applicant to suspend the development application until a decision was made on the building’s protection status.

Three years later, the resources management unit within the planning directorate recommended lowering the scheduling to Grade 3 from Grade 2. The applicant was formally informed of this recommendation in November 2005, pending the minister’s approval.

Three years later, the applicant complained to the Mepa chairman about the delay to conclude the revision process.

During a planning board meeting in 2009, the recommendation to reschedule was refused as the “members commented that the re-grading is tied to the proposal and the proposal is not considered to be sufficient. The proposal did not appear to be workable even with the de-scheduling”.

The tribunal did not find any notification or correspondence in the files showing that the applicant had been informed of the decision and, in 2011, the planning board turned down the development application.

It “expressed concern at the authority’s actions and said this created serious doubts about whether the planning process was correct and transparent towards the applicant”.

The applicant’s complaint about the delay was fair.

However, Mepa assumed a power that was vested in the minister when it refused the recommendation.

“This is a decision that goes beyond the powers of the planning authority when the re-scheduling process was pending for the minister’s approval.

“The authority had no role to reconsider its own recommendation and take a decision, which was never communicated to the applicant, who was under the impression that it was still at the minister,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal ordered the files to be returned to Mepa to wait for the minister’s decision.

It also ordered the regulator to inform the authorities about the recommendation within a month and for a decision to be taken within a reasonable timeframe.