The planning authority has defended the permit given to the daughter of a minister’s consultant for a villa in an outside development zone in Siġġiewi, despite calls for an independent investigation.

Mepa approved a permit for the construction of a new house on agricultural land issued on behalf of the son-in-law of Albert (Bertu) Pace, a consultant to Agriculture Parliamentary Secretary Roderick Galdes and a former Labour MP.

The development is earmarked in an area known as Ta’ Sant’Andrija, which planning policies identify as an area of agricultural value.

The planning authority cleared the way for the demolition of a 25 square metre garage defined as a “permitted farm” to build the driveway to a 280 square metre house on agricultural land.

Mepa is insisting the footprint of the garage was 232 square metres, despite the planning authority’s case officer – who argued for a refusal of the permit – saying it was a 25 square metre building.

The architect in the application was Labour MP Charles Buhagiar, who is the executive chairman of the Building Industry Consultative Council.

“The permit for the garage was issued in 1986. The change of use from garage to farm was made prior to 1992, when no permit was required for such change of use,” the planning watchdog insisted in a reply to an article by this newspaper reporting on the permit.

While Mepa’s case officer report acknowledges the existence of a permit for a garage, it also states that a renewal application was subsequently refused. Moreover, it results that the permit that had been previously issued was for a different location.

Most people had a few ruminants in this area. You can hardly call that a farm

The plans are for the villa to be built on virgin land, further in from the existing garage, which will be demolished.

Mepa said that the site’s former use as a farm was substantiated by a letter from the Agriculture Department – which falls under the same ministry where Mr Pace works – confirming the farm was in operation before 2000.

No documented evidence was presented to confirm this and residents in the area said they could recall the site being used by a certain Carmela Schembri, born in 1925, who had a few sheep in the area.

Residents in the area who spoke to the Times of Malta said they never knew it to be a farm and always thought the structure was related to the adjacent public water reservoir.

“Most people had a few ruminants in this area at the time. You can hardly call that a farm. Many people here regularly go to that reservoir and take water for different needs. We thought the building next to it was connected and stored related equipment,” a resident said.

The case officer’s report refers to a sworn statement by Ms Schembri’s son given to Mepa declaring it was used as a poultry farm from 1988 to 2000, despite the fact that the structure seems unsuitable for such an operation. The report noted that a sworn statement could not “be considered as valid since it was not adequately signed and rubber stamped by a notary”.

On the day the relevant planning authority board was hearing the case, a document was presented by the Agriculture Department stating one of its representatives had visited the farm “pre-year 2000”.

Documents mentioned by Mepa in its reply to the newspaper article are not available to the public.

Neither did the planning authority provide this newspaper with the document presented by the Agriculture Department justifying the decision to allow the villa development over 10,000 square metres of land surrounded by extensive paved and landscaped areas, a driveway and three entrances.

Mepa would only say that “30 new indigenous trees would be planted”.

The Times of Malta asked for evidence from the authorities proving the garage was once a farm, but none had been submitted by the time of writing. This newspaper asked for official records of inspections on the farm by the veterinary regulation directorate, which are usually signed and dated.

The planning authority stressed that there had been no objections by the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee.

However, the committee had declared it did not consider the proposed plans to conform to “a high quality rural design” specified in the planning policy revised under the Labour administration allowing such development.

Front Ħarsien ODZ called for an independent audit by the Ombudsman’s office on the case last week.