The Environmental and Planning Review Tribunal has overturned a planning decision, greenlighting the sanctioning of an extension and alterations to a pre-1967 boathouse in Dwejra.

Frank Frendo's boathouse had already been sanctioned through a 2017 application (PA 2319/17) but further work was carried out since.

A second application - submitted in 2022 seeking to sanction alterations to the 42.6 square metre boathouse, including a rear extension of 8.7 square metre - had initially been refused.

The applicant sought to sanction additions and alterations carried out since the sanctioning of other works. Image: PA's MapServer.

The PA had refused the application, citing that the proposed extension violated key objectives of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development, including those intended to prevent illegitimate development in rural areas and protect the landscape's positive qualities.

In his appeal, Frendo - represented by former MEPA CEO Ian Stafrace - argued that the PA had wrongly applied the policies and laws governing the site. 

He emphasised that the extension was minimal and positioned at the rear of the boathouse, concealed by higher adjacent boathouses and built using weathered stone and timber apertures in keeping with the site's vernacular architecture. 

Frendo also argued that other boathouses in the area had been similarly extended and sanctioned under the Dwejra Action Plan.

The PA contended that the site in question was located within a protected area, designated as part of the Natura 2000 network. 

It cited environmental concerns, including the potential degradation of the site and intensification of built development, which would set a negative precedent for similar development in the future. 

The PA also referenced discrepancies between the approved configuration and the more recent alterations.

But despite the PA’s objections, EPRT ruled in favour of Frendo.

It noted that the extension was minor, hidden from view, and lower than neighbouring boathouses. 

It also found that the extension did not cause environmental degradation.

EPRT observed that while the extension had occurred after the issuance of the previous permit, this did not automatically make it unacceptable. 

It also took into consideration the unique context of the site, stating, “The extension is minimal and does not result in environmental degradation”.

EPRT ordered the PA to issue the development permit within 30 days, subject to the imposition of standard conditions and a planning obligation of €69.88 per square metre of the extension. 

A fine is also to be imposed for sanctioning the development, to be paid within six months before the issuance of the full development permit.