The revocation of Ramla l-Hamra permit

The much debated Ramla l-Hamra development permit to redevelop the former Ulysses Lodge, essentially comprising a complex of already-built dwelling units and a large country residence-style entertainment complex, has been revoked. This after it transpired that one of the permit conditions, obliging the applicant to enter into a public deed with Mepa not to transfer any part of the complex except if it is being sold as a complete business concern and only for tourism purposes, could not be met. This condition was imposed on the understanding that the applicant was indeed the owner of the land, following which it resulted that part of the land in question pertained to third parties and this was never indicated to the authority by the applicant.

Mepa has therefore opted to apply the provisions of article 39A of the amended Development Planning Act, which specifically provides that an approved permit may be revoked or modified in cases of fraud, error on the face of the record or an issue of public safety. In this case, the authority proceeded with the withdrawal of the permit, claiming that the development application was governed by a misleading declaration in relation to the ownership of the land.

Although at face value this information is deemed central to the decision taken by the authority in approving the said permit, any approved development permit is always subject to obtaining clearance from any third party owners (if part of the land belongs to third parties) with a view to enable activation of any permit.

Pending such a clearance, a permit can never be implemented. In simple terms, it signifies that works on site could not commence unless formal clearance was obtained from the respective third party owners (in this case the government) to enable the applicant to enter into a public deed with Mepa not to transfer any part of the complex as clearly stipulated in the permit.

The revocation of this permit has therefore been based entirely on civil considerations. This infers that the planning justifications governing the said development remain fully valid until this day, recalling further that the permit has been issued in accordance with active Structure Plan provisions. In other words, the planning considerations governing this permit, which hinge on the conversion of an existing legal construction in an outside development zone into a development featuring a more sensitive architectural treatment, remain uncontested from a planning point of view.

It must be recalled that the footprint of the proposed development was intended to cover already committed and disturbed areas, even though the proposal included the construction of a number of pools along the periphery of the site, which are acceptable development in outside development zones subject to a number of stringent provisions.

Of equal significance, the decision to revoke the permit also infers that incorrect declaration of land ownership may now lead to the revocation of a permit, even though, to date, ownership has normally not been considered as a material planning consideration affecting development applications, unless an application is intended to sanction already committed works.

It is therefore incorrect to claim that if the condition for the signing of a public deed had not been imposed in the permit, ownership would not have been an issue on the activation of the permit. This is because formal clearance from any third party owner to enable the signing of the deed, or to proceed with the commencement of any work, was deemed to be a prerequisite in any case to activate the permit. Even so, the planning considerations justifying the issue of this permit remain uncontested.

Mr Musumeci, an architect by profession, is a Nationalist candidate for the general election.

rmperiti@onvol.net