A permit to build questionable ‘domestic stores’ on the airspace of a ridge-edge apartment block in Żebbuġ, Gozo was revoked by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal in an appeal battle waged by enraged residents.

They had expressed doubts about the eventual use of the unusual rooftop storerooms with a view and the tribunal saw their point, annulling PA 5128/20.

We convinced them that having stores on top of a block of flats facing the sea was a ruse- Appellants

Applicant Mario Loporto, through his lawyer, Alexander Bigeni, had applied to construct the stores on Skappuccina Court A and the Planning Authority had requested the tribunal to confirm the issued permit and to reject the third-party appeal.

But, in its review of the decision, the tribunal maintained the “structures were unacceptable in principle”.

“We convinced them that having stores on top of a block of flats facing the sea was a ruse,” Tanya Sciberras Camilleri, the lawyer representing the residents of the Gozo block, said yesterday.

In March 2021, the neighbours argued the plans would shift from washrooms to penthouses. Back then, Sciberras Camilleri was planning to appeal the PA decision, describing the situation as “an old trick in the book” that sees ‘washrooms’ – as the original application indicated – morph into penthouses with panoramas.

Suspicion that proposal was a guise for residential unit

The suspicion was that the proposal was merely a guise to create a separate residential unit or to connect the “domestic stores” to the penthouse situated at the topmost level of the adjoining block of apartments.

During the public hearing, it was highlighted that the residents of the underlying apartments and adjoining block had nothing to do with the proposed washrooms and questioned whom they would serve without even any access by lift.

In their objection, the residents had said the proposal did not make sense and there was no planning justification for the siting of domestic stores on top of a residential block also because the applicant did not own any of the underlying units.

From one sitting to the next, the description of the development transformed from washrooms into 'domestic stores', with a door and apertures onto the terrace, 'so that the goods in storage can enjoy the view!'- Tanya Sciberras Camilleri, representing the residents

Their objections, however, had fallen on deaf ears at the time, Sciberras Camilleri had complained. From one sitting to the next, she had said, the description of the development transformed from washrooms into “domestic stores”, with a door and apertures onto the terrace, “so that the goods in storage can enjoy the view!”

She had maintained the plans demonstrated that the proposed building was not intended as a store but as a residence, explaining that domestic stores should be like garages, with no openings, in order to maximise storage and stacking space.

“There was no reason for the storage of any items on top of a block of apartments while marring a protected view.”

No reason given to have a store

Having decided that the proposed structures were unacceptable, the tribunal did not go into the merits of other objections, including that their construction on top of the apartment block at the edge of the development zone was deemed visually intrusive and affected long views of the development when seen from the opposite side of the valley.

Sciberras Camilleri said neither the applicant nor the Planning Commission attempted to explain the reason for the store, showing the latter to be just a “rubber stamp”.

Lighthouse Court residents and flat owners in adjacent Skappuccina Court A, where the stores were meant to be built, had expressed their disappointment that the PA “totally ignored” their point of view and had called out its “simplistic” decision-making process.

It failed to foresee that granting building rights on the roof of apartments to a non-resident would also pave the way for more development on the neighbouring properties, they had said.

The apartment blocks in question at the edge of the promontory are located in a quiet dead-end, which is already suffering environmental pressure, they had said, protesting they should be able to spend the last years of their lives in peace.

Airspace had become very valuable and owners held on to it in the hope that height limitations would be increased, their lawyer had said.

But the tactic to apply for a washroom and watch it transform into a luxury penthouse had not worked this time.