Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/694236
49 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 19 JUNE 2016 Opinion A Magistrate's Court in Gozo allowed that a child's surname be changed in order to ref lect those of the parents. In was decided in Yunis Alex Tramboo and his wife Christabel Tramboo Galea -v- Director of Public Registry in Gozo by Magistrate Joanne Vella Cuschieri on 14 June, 2016. In their application the plaintiffs explained that they were the parents of Crystal who was born in 2014. When they registered their daughter they told the clerk that their daughter's surname should be Tramboo Galea. The following year the couple married. They then noticed that their daughter's surname was erroneously listed as Tramboo and not Tramboo Galea. The couple asked the court to make a correction to ref lect what they originally intended. The Director of Public Registry filed a statement of defence, that this was in fact the parents' error. They had been asked to sign the registration form, which they did. Magistrate Vella examined the evidence brought before the court, which included an affidavit presented by Christabel Tramboo Galea, who explained that since the child was born out of wedlock, she had discussed with her then partner that the child should have both surnames. They feared that if the child had only her foreign surname she would be discriminated against. They had plans to get married and therefore, the child would have the surname of both of them. She explained that when they went to register their child, the form was filled in by a clerk. The clerk asked which surname would the child have and both parents told her that it would be Tramboo Galea. The mother's sister confirmed that she heard the plaintiffs discuss the issue of the surname and had intended to register their child's surname using the two surnames. A number of witnesses confirmed the same thing. The clerk who registered the newly born baby testified but could not remember what was discussed on the day. According to the procedure used, she asks the parents a number of questions. The surname of the baby is not one of these questions, although the law allows that a child be given the surname of both parents. The information is put in the Registry system, which is then printed. In the section of the certificate where the names of the child are listed there is Crystal Tramboo. The father of the child also testified, stating that the form was filled in by the clerk and a paper was pushed in front of them to sign and they signed. The Court commented that if the only evidence had been that of the parents, then it would suspect that they had second thoughts and used this procedure to change the surname. However, the court could not brush the other evidence aside. The plaintiffs' version of events is credible. On the other hand the clerk who filled in the registration details of the child mentioned that no questions are asked on the surname to be given and the father's surname is automatically listed. The Court suggested that an additional question should be introduced in order for such incidents to be avoided. Magistrate Vella held she was convinced that the plaintiffs mentioned that the surname of their daughter should be Tramboo Galea, but for some reason or another only Tramboo was written down. The Court also commented that the form which the parents were asked to signed is confusing. The Court then moved to uphold the request and ordered the change of surname of the young girl. Malcolm Mifsud, Partner, Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Court corrects child's surname A planning application contemplating the demolition of an existing garage together with the subsequent construction of a block of apartments and underlying garages was submitted to the MEPA way back in 2004. The proposed designs include a number of dwellings located towards the rear of the site overlying internal garages having no frontage onto a public road. The request was turned down on a number of counts. The Commission objected to any dwellings being developed without a street frontage. Moreover, the Commission found that it was not possible for ambulances and fire engines to manoeuvre within the site precincts should an emergency arise. Furthermore, the Commission raised concern with respect to privacy issues, particularly since "the light and ventilation of the proposed habitable rooms will only be available through an internal garage drive-way and an internal yard." In addition, it was observed that the proposed vehicular access was less than 6.3 metres, as required by the policy regulating design of forecourts. Concluding, the Commission objected to the fact that the proposed balconies were not adequately setback from the relative party walls as required by the Civil Code. As a reaction, the applicant filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, insisting that he should have been granted a development permit. In his submissions, the applicant argued inter alia that access requirements were met. Moreover, it was pointed out that the designs showed a 'landscaped yard which is common to the whole development' and which in turn allows for adequate ventilation. Regarding privacy concerns, the appellant pointed out that "the proposed development has windows and apertures which are more than 6.5 metres away from the adjacent building." The appellant ultimately remarked that his proposal meets Policy 6.12 requirements in that residential development over internal garages is permitted where the garage/s is/are linked to a dwelling or building with a frontage on a street provided that the proposal "would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of buildings adjoining the site in terms of outlook and privacy." To further support his arguments, the applicant made reference to no fewer than 16 planning permissions which are deemed 'similar' to his proposal. The case officer rebutted by stating that the applicant's site was restricted, reiterating that the proposed dwellings failed to provide a satisfactory design layout. In this case, it was recalled that "the internal residential units do not have adequate outlook, and also impinge on the privacy of other neighbouring residential uses." As for the permits quoted by the applicant, the officer representing the Authority observed that the said permits "concern different site contexts and where different site considerations may have been applicable." In its assessment, the Tribunal observed that policy 3.8 of the Development Control Policy & Design Guidance 2000 (the applicable policy at the time of the Commission's decision) actually provides that residences without a street frontage may be permitted subject to the approach road network being capable of accommodating the traffic, privacy is not compromised, a minimum 4.1 metre access to the site is provided and the design is compatible in terms of height and scale with the adjoining property. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the proposal was acceptable in principle, however subject to the depth of the proposed dwellings being reduced. robert@rmperiti.com Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and a Law Degree Robert Musumeci Tribunal asks developer to scale down development Malcolm Mifsud mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt YOUR FIRST CLICK OF THE DAY www.maltatoday.com.mt Residences without a street frontage were permitted in the old policies