Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/433160
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2014 15 JAMES DEBONO THE Malta Environment and Plan- ning Authority (MEPA) may have found a way around the blanket ban on permits regularising illegalities on scheduled sites such as historical buildings or Natura 2000 sites intro- duced in 2010. This is because, according to a MEPA spokesperson, the author- ity can still approve permits on sites where it had previously issued an en- forcement order against illegalities, if the application is meant to rectify these illegalities and the developer abides by the conditions imposed in the permit by the time that the per- mit is formally "issued". A formal permit is normally issued some months after a board decision, thus giving time for developers to re- dress pending illegalities on the site. When asked what legal advice was given to MEPA with regard to its recent decision to approve an ap- plication by Polidano Brothers for the restoration and extension of three townhouses in Balzan, a MEPA spokesperson replied that the appli- cation in question "was seeking to address the enforcement issues" and therefore the "Sixth Schedule is not applicable". According to the Sixth Schedule MEPA cannot regularise any illegal development on protected sites such as historical buildings or Natura 2000 sites on which the authority had previously issued an enforce- ment order. Yet in the case of the Balzan devel- opment two enforcement orders, is- sued in 2004 and 2012 are still pend- ing despite the permit granted by the board. Polidano was served with two en- forcement orders, one issued in 2004 in view of the demolition of part of a building, walls and other structures in back gardens and another issued in 2012 in view of the uprooting of trees and the pulling down of part of a garden rubble wall. Subsequently the law courts confirmed the validity of these enforcements but an appeal is now pending. According to the MEPA spokesper- son an enforcement notice is closed when either the illegal development is removed or else "it is sanctioned by some form of permission". "Therefore, although the applica- tion decided by the MEPA board ad- dressed the illegalities on site, the en- forcement cases will be closed after the applicant would have honoured a number of requirements (such as the deposit of bank guarantees) and the planning permission is issued". The board imposed two bank guarantees, one of €46,000 to en- sure that the restoration works are carried out according to the agreed method statement and another of €13,400 to ensure that landscaping works are carried out in line with ap- proved drawings. A penalty was also imposed for works that were carried out without planning permission. Din l-Art Helwa had argued that according to law any application to sanction an illegality in a listed build- ing must be refused if the illegality has not been remedied prior or dur- ing the processing of the application and not after a permit is granted. The NGO pointed out that one of the three dwellings has already been illegally demolished The permit granted by the board in- cludes the conservation of the prop- erties and the retention of a number of significant features and structures within the properties which include a mill room, an underground cistern and WWII shelter and a pigeon loft. It also allowed the construction of an extension at the back of each town- house. MEPA's interpretation on the ap- plicability of the Sixth Schedule could offer a window of opportunity for other developers seeking to regu- larise illegalities in scheduled areas as these can still apply for a permit if this is meant to address these ille- galities. The Sixth Schedule nightmare The Sixth Schedule of the Environ- ment and Development Planning Act was meant to put an end to the long established practice through which developers applied to regular- ise developments carried out illegally in the past. The controversial article bans MEPA from regularising any devel- opment on any scheduled area ir- respective of when it took place and any illegal extension to ODZ devel- opment which took place after 2008. According to MEPA the Sixth Schedule only applies to applications presented after 2010 although this interpretation was disputed by a sen- tence issued by the Review Tribunal. The present government intends removing the blanket ban on the regularisation of development out- side development zones (ODZ) and scheduled areas such as areas of eco- logical and scientific importance. This emerges from the consulta- tion document "For an efficient planning system" which has been issued for public consultation. The document is a consultation paper on the proposed split of MEPA into separate environment and planning authorities. Recently planning applications have been presented to regularise illegal development on scheduled locations such as Paradise Bay and Xlendi Valley. A practising architect who talked to MaltaToday explained that the Sixth Schedule needs to be defined clearly in view of the permit issued in Balzan, as this will have an impact on future decisions. "While one understands that it does not make sense to invoke the Sixth Schedule to stop commenda- ble restoration works like those pres- ently envisioned at Balzan, it is a bit frustrating to see developers granted permits on sites where blatant ille- galities took place on their watch a few years ago". The architect suggested that any pending enforcements and ille- galities in listed buildings should be completely redressed before any permit is issued for an extension of these buildings in their back gardens, as has happened in the Balzan case. Balzan houses: Haunted by the Sixth Schedule? MEPA can grant permits in listed properties even if enforcements are pending on the same site, provided that the permit "addresses" these illegalities by the time the permit is formally issued MEPA's interpretation of the Sixth Schedule could offer an opportunity for other developers