Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/785757
48 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2017 Classifieds O n the 7th February 2017, Magistrate Joanne Vella Cuschieri in the case Camilleri vs. Azzopardi et held that a co-owner possessing property adjacent to the land commonly owned with other parties, may demand such part of the latter property as is adjacent to the property already owned by him upon division of the property between them. In this case, the parties jointly purchased an undivided plot of land in the limits of Nadur, Gozo. In a subsequent contract, many years later, this plot of land was duly divided into six portions, each party being assigned two plots of the aforementioned land. However, one small portion of this land was prohibited from being divided between the parties by the respective authorities and thus remained commonly owned between them. Although the dividing lines between these plots of lands were established in the aforementioned contract, a dispute arose between Camilleri and Azzopardi as to where the dividing lines were actually placed. They failed to reach an agreement as to the exact portion of land which had been assigned to the plaintiff and that assigned to the defendant. The plaintiffs thus argued that this should be determined by the Court in a clear and permanent manner. The Court, however, relying on the technical expert appointed by it, found that the dispute arising between the parties was unfounded as the dividing lines were already clearly and precisely established in the contract. The plea was dismissed on the ground that although the plaintiffs tried to settle this dispute in good faith, the defendants kept raising arguments without any good reason whatsoever. Furthermore, Camilleri et no longer wanted to remain in a state of common-ownership with the defendants, pleading to the Court to duly divide the remaining portion equally amongst all owners. The defendants argued that this was as yet undivided due to the fact that the government sought its ownership for development as a green area or in order to build a street in the public interest. The Court concluded that the parties had every right to ask for the division of property. Moreover, given the fact that the plaintiffs were previously assigned a plot of land adjacent to the land still commonly owned between them, it was argued that in terms of Article 503 they were entitled to that portion of the undivided land commonly owned adjacent to the plot of land already owned by the plaintiff. Having apportioned this part to the plaintiffs, the Court then assigned the remaining portion to the other parties in equal portions. The Court finally appointed Notary Dr Maria Vella Magro so as to ensure that the division of the remaining plot of land commonly owned between the parties takes place within a month from the judgment. Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates A development planning application entitled "change of use from farm to residential unit and agricultural store including related alterations to the existing building within the footprint of the same building" was turned down by the Environment and Planning Commission after it held that the proposed change of use (from a disused farm building into residential unit) ran counter to criterion 5(c) of policy 6.2C of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014) in that "there is no sufficient evidence that the farm has been disused since 2014." Moreover the Commission found that the proposed drawings did not satisfy the current sanitary regulations since the en- suite facilities lacked ventilation. Incidentally, the building in question is located outside the development zone of Siggiewi. As anticipated, the applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. In his submissions, it was argued that the farm was put into disuse in 2003 as evidenced by the veterinary officer. With regard to the sanitary issues, the applicant contended that he was not made aware of these shortcomings during the application process. In reply, the Authority reiterated that the applicant was mistaken to assert that the farm had ceased operations "for at least 10 years prior to the coming into force of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance". The case officer made express reference to a site inspection which was carried out in May 2013, during which "a number of animals were found on site". But even so, it was highlighted that planning policies were designed to encourage "redevelopment and conversion of existing farm buildings" where such buildings constitute "a negative environmental impact on the site and its surroundings." In this particular case, the Authority was of the firm opinion that the present building was not creating any significant environmental impacts on the site and its surroundings. In relation to the applicant's suggestion to submit drawings in order to address pending sanitary issues, the case officer insisted that fresh drawings could not be entertained at appeals stage. In its assessment, the Tribunal made reference to policy 6.2c which inter alia states that "permission may be granted for the total redevelopment of an existing building, or the consolidation of buildings, located outside development zone" provided inter alia that "the applicant can sufficiently prove that the building/s is covered by development permission (other than those specifically permitted for agricultural use after the coming into force of this policy document), or that it is/are/was a pre-1978 building/s." In addition, the same policy provides that a single dwelling may be permitted when the standing building consists of "a disused livestock farm which has ceased operation for at least 10 years and which is creating a negative environmental impact on the site and its surroundings". The Tribunal noted that in this case, the Veterinary Department had confirmed that the farm was no longer registered after 2004 though animals were found on site in subsequent years. Against this background, the Tribunal held in favour of the appellant. Dr Musumeci is a perit and a lawyer When animals are not kept 'for commercial purposes' Robert Musumeci "Authority was of the firm opinion that the present building was not creating any significant environmental impacts on the site and its surroundings" Parties had every right to ask for division of property Malcolm Mifsud Dispute arising between the parties was unfounded as the dividing lines were already clearly and precisely established in the contract