Abracadabra: PA’s magic wand turns 15sq.m room into 200sq.m villa

The Planning Authority has approved a 199sq.m villa built over two floors and a 75sq.m pool and deck area instead of a 15sq.m room between San Gwann and Msida.

The site is found along the narrow rural road known as Triq San Ġwann Tal-Għargħar, which links to the University of Malta. The area is not only outside the development zone but lies within a Natura 2000 site which includes the Wied Għollieqa valley.

The application filed by Silvan Mizzi, developer Joseph Portelli’s business partner in the company Trivium Projects, was approved by the Planning Commission chaired by Martin Camilleri in May.

A survey sheet dating to 1967 shows that the only structure present on site was a 15sq.m room. No further planning permits for other structures found on the site were ever issued.  But the room was illegally extended in subsequent years.

The  Environment and Resources Authority had objected to the development warning that approval will result in urban sprawl in the ODZ and will have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding “rural scenery”.

But while objecting to the proposed development ERA had noted that “no significant impacts” on the integrity of the protected site, its habitats and species were  envisaged.

Rural policy still rules

The application was approved under the controversial rural policy approved in 2015 which allows the conversion of countryside ruins into villas but only if proof of past residential use is submitted.

In 2020 the Planning Authority had presented a draft policy which did away with this loophole but three years later the old policy remains in place and the reform has been apparently stalled.

In 2022, a PA spokesperson had told MaltaToday that the Planning Authority was still “assessing” submissions received following the publication of the draft policy more than three years ago and is “considering a range of policy options to address the issues raised.”

Ironically the reform was sparked by the approval of a permit for a villa instead of countryside ruins in Qala Gozo following a public outcry. The permit issued to Mark Agius another business partner of Joseph Portelli was later revoked.

The quandary of proving past residential use

The case officer had originally recommended a refusal because the proof of past residential use was deemed to be “insufficient”, particularly because no site plans were attached to any of the documentation submitted to conclusively prove that the property in question coincides with that mentioned in electoral registers and notarial deeds presented by the developer’s architect.

Moreover, since no proof of past residential use was presented, the application was processed under another policy which limits any redevelopment to properties with a minimum habitable area of 100sq.m.

The case officer also pointed out that when one considers that the original pre-1978 structure only measured an external footprint of 15sq.m, “it is highly unlikely that such structure was ever used as a permanent residence, prior to this being significantly extended in the recent years with no apparent permission”.

The case officer concluded that the proposal will result in the creation of a new dwelling unit outside the development zone and since no conclusive evidence of past residential use was presented the proposed additions to the old structure were “ considered excessive.”

The proof of past residential ownership submitted by the applicant included a reference to a property located in the same area in electoral registers for the years 1945, 1961, 1962, 1970 and 1980.

The case officer had initially noted various inconsistencies in the documentation presented noting in the submitted notarial declaration, reference is made to farmhouse number 13 while the electoral register refers to number 8, while other documentation referred to “two rooms without a number.”

But subsequently the developer presented further proof including a sworn declaration by the son of a deceased resident who lived in the farmhouse together with a notarial document documenting the purchase of a property in this location.

The case officer still expressed doubts on the proof submitted but acknowledged that a permit application submitted on an adjacent property bearing door number 12 in the same street “gives more weight to the declarations, deeds and electoral registers” presented as proof that the property in question coincides with the one bearing number 13 mentioned in notarial deeds.

Commission justifies decision

The Planning Commission gave a justification for over-turning the case officer’s recommendation for a refusal of the permit.

With regards to the past use of the property as a residence, the commission referred to proof “in the form of extract of electoral registers and notarial declaration, sworn declaration and other related documentation”.

The Planning Commission also noted that the developer will restore the vernacular part of the existing building for which a clearance was obtained from the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage. Moreover, the latest plans showed a reduction in the built footprint from the original plans to below the 200sq.m threshold.

The Planning Commission also noted that ERA had concluded the development will not have  a significant impact on the integrity of the protected site.

The latest submissions also indicated a reduction in the height of the proposed building and an improvement in the overall design while introducing soft landscaping at the back of the site.