The Planning Authority voted this afternoon against revoking the permit issued to the son-in-law of a government consultant for development on agricultural land in Siġġiewi.

It concluded there had been no fraud in the evidence submitted to justify the granting of the permit.

The case was flagged by this newspaper last December following doubts on an Agriculture Department letter that was pivotal in the permit being approved. The letter to the Mepa board declared the land, outside development zone, was once a farm.

The letter, signed by Stephen Galea as a vet support officer though he is listed as a labourer in official records, has since been withdrawn. Mr Galea, who recently obtained a controversial permit for a vineyard in Bidnija, was expected to face disciplinary proceedings, sources said.

The only voice on the board speaking in favour of revocation was Opposition representative Ryan Callus

The applicant’s lawyer argued that the only issue with the withdrawn letter was that Mr Galea was authorised to sign it but that the contents of the letter – that the site had been operating as a farm – were never in dispute, and therefore that the letter could not be considered false.

The lawyer presented several affidavits to show that the site had been in use as a farm.

He also brought forward the vet support officer who had visited the site in Siġġiewi, who certified that it was in use as a farm pre-2000, as well as the daughter of the site’s previous owner Carmela Schembri, who confirmed that her mother had kept sheep, rabbits and chickens on a small farm

The only voice on the board speaking in favour of revocation was Opposition representative Ryan Callus, who argued that the Agriculture Department had withdrawn the letter by Mr Galea but had never issued another, properly authorised, to officially confirm that the site had been used as a farm, as required
by law.

The Agriculture Department has stated that no records could be traced as the documents had been lost.

Mr Callus argued that relying on affidavits would open the door to similar applications for farms to be converted into villas, which would then have to be granted without official confirmation.

Elisabeth Ellul, chairwoman of the Planning Commission (which gave the permit the green light) said the evidence showed that the granting of the permit had been valid.

An investigation by the Agriculture Department, launched after the case was reported by this newspaper, found that director general Mario Spiteri had placed “undue pressure” on Mr Galea to sign the document. No action against him appeared to be contemplated at this stage, the sources noted.

The permit was issued on behalf of Roderick Farrugia, the son-in-law of Albert (known as Bertu) Pace, a former Labour MP appointed consultant to Agriculture Parliamentary Secretary Roderick Galdes soon after the election. He has been temporarily suspended.

The architect handling the case was Labour MP Charles Buhagiar, executive chairman of the Building Industry Consultative Council.

The departmental investigation led the planning authority to start proceedings to revoke the permit. Despite the withdrawal of the letter, the applicant, through his lawyer, expressed “disappointment” that the planning authority launched proceedings to revoke the permit based on “false information by those who have an agenda that goes beyond environment and planning”.

In a sworn statement, the previous owner declared that sheep were once kept on site. This is the second time such a declaration is being made because the first time it was not accepted as it was not signed by a notary as required by law.

The development consists of a driveway leading up to a 280-square metre house on agricultural fields. The total area covers about 10,000 square metres, with the rest being landscaped gardens.

Mepa’s case officer had recommended a refusal of the permit, noting “the planning permission… was based on false information”.

The case officer had countered what the applicant’s lawyer’s claimed: “The applicant’s lawyer asserts that the withdrawal of the [letter] has no consequence or no effect whatsoever on…procedures. The directorate considers that such an assertion is not correct given that the decision was based, among other factors, on the same document withdrawn”.

The case officer also noted “there is not sufficient evidence that the existing building is legally established and that it has ever been used as a livestock farm… the development would therefore result in the creation of a new residential unit”.

Requests by the Times of Malta to obtain a copy of the Agriculture Department’s investigation have been refused under the Freedom of Information Act and the Aarhus Convention. An appeal to the Data Commissioner is pending.

caroline.muscat@timesofmalta.com