PA defers decision on stables near Portelli’s Sannat project

The Planning Authority has asked architect Alex Bigeni to verify whether his client committed illegalities before deciding whether to issue a permit for four new stables in the vicinity of the Ta’ Cenc cliffs.     

Activists had previously presented detailed photographic images documenting various works carried out without a permit, including rebuilding of rubble walls and extending a dirt road to the cliff’s edge. These have taken place partly over Natura 2000 site and Special Area of Conservation.  The stables themselves are being proposed just outside a special area of conservation.

The commission has also asked the architect to verify if the land is really owned by applicant Marlon Mercieca after four NGOs namely Moviment Graffitti, Din l-Art Helwa, Flimkien Ghall Ambjent Ahjar and Ghawdix claimed that the land is owned by Excel Limited, a company belonging to Mercury House developer Joseph Portelli.

The four NGOs also claim that the proposed stables are linked to Portelli’s controversial development of 124 flats in Sannat.  The flats proposed in three different applications A, will be located 300m from the cliff-edge and very close to the proposed stables.

During the meetingm architect Bigeni claimed his client had signed a contract through which he obtained full ownership of the land four months before submitting the application.   

The decision on the proposed stables has now been postponed by six weeks during which the architect would have to “verify” both the ownership of the land and whether illegalities have taken place on site.

Astrid Vella from Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar compared the commission’s decision to ask the architect to ‘verify’ whether illegalities took place to letting “the fox in to the chicken coop”.  Vella insisted that it should be the Planning Authority in a site inspection and not the applicant’s architect who should inspect the site.

But board chairman Martin Camilleri replied that architects are bound by professional ethics.

While Vella insisted that the site should be restored back to its natural state, the board chairman replied that “unfortunately as happens in many other cases”, the illegalities can still be sanctioned.

The Environment and Resources Authority had objected to the stables,  warning that this will result in the take-up of agricultural land, the proliferation of built structures and loss of rural character of the site. But the case officer still recommended approval.

Correction: This article has been amended from the original to reflect the correct name of the board chairman.