A request to build an open storage in Attard was turned down by the Environment Planning Tribunal, which slammed the applicant for leaving an illegal car park out of the plans.

“The plans submitted with this application are equivalent to a false declaration because none of the drawings show the illegality on site,” the tribunal said in its decision.

Instead, the plans “lead one to believe that a new parking area was being proposed and not that there is a concrete platform”.

Not only did the tribunal turn down the appeal but it also fined applicant George Gatt €2,500.

The appeal was filed after the Development Control Commission refused the application in 2011 because it did not comply with open storage guidelines and was in an area of ecological value.

The development would “adver-sely affect the area, hinder its protection and run counter to the rural conservation and ecological objectives” of the structure plan.

The commission had also said there was “no justification” to develop the site, in Mdina Road.

“It is apparent there are no reasons from a planning point of view why the proposed development cannot be located in an area designated for development or in an existing built up area.”

Also, the development could not be considered unless the illegality, a concrete-filled site used as a parking area, “is first sanctioned and removed”.

The area had been slapped with an enforcement notice.

Direct action had been taken and the era was sealed off with concrete blocks.

During 2010, cars that were on site had been removed but the enforcement unit confirmed “there was a breach” because the applicant once again deposited vehicles there. However, a planning authority document should not be “interpreted” in a restrictive manner, the applicant’s architect argued.

The planning directorate should have requested the Agriculture Department to look at the site and discussed with the planning directorate advisory team to evaluate whether it could be used as an open storage area.

The tribunal noted that the applicant said he would remove the illegal development once the permit was issued.

However, a legal notice made it clear that all illegal development not being sanctioned had to be removed from the site before an application was filed, or six months from when the applicant was informed of the illegality.

The illegal development was still on site and the applicant had had “enough time” to fall in line with the law in a span of 12 years, the tribunal noted.

Also, an outline development permit could never sanction illegal development.

It was “highly objectionable” that a person persisted with the illegality and breached a direct order to submit an outline application with “incorrect information” without “even attempting” to sanction the illegality.