An application by a minister’s husband to sanction infringements in a Żejtun farmhouse was turned down yesterday, three months after Times of Malta first exposed irregularities on site.
Filed by Patrick Dalli, who is married to Equal Opportunities Minister Helena Dalli, the application was unanimously rejected even though the case officer’s original recommendation for refusal had been changed to ‘grant’ the permit since the last hearing earlier this month.
The sitting yesterday lasted less than five minutes. Unusually, there was no debate and no reason was given for the Mepa board’s decision to refuse the recommendation to approve the infringements on site.
Mr Dalli retains the right to appeal the decision.
The property – owned by Pada Builders Ltd, which belongs to the couple – is in an outside development zone.
The development had breached the original permit on several counts and Mr Dalli was served an enforcement notice. The farmhouse came into the spotlight after this newspaper reported workers on site despite the enforcement notice.
The Prime Minister’s test is to make his minister shoulder political responsibility
The Opposition said in a statement the refusal was proof the Nationalist Party was right in its assessment of the case when it said works on site should not have been allowed because of the enforcement notice. It had argued this was enough reason for the planning authority to dismiss the hearing.
The PN said the Prime Minister was wrong in backing his minister. “His test now is to make her shoulder political responsibility,” it said.
Mr and Ms Dalli, whose residence is situated a few metres away from the farmhouse in question, had said they were not aware workmen were on site. Mr Dalli had said the property was on a promise of sale agreement, which was never published in full despite repeated requests to Mr Dalli and the buyer.
Meanwhile, the case has prompted action by the Ombudsman’s office. Planning Commissioner David Pace has concluded the case raises issues that are in the public interest and worthy of investigation.
He questioned whether the planning authority had any guidelines on what work was permitted once an enforcement notice was served.
The case was opened because Mepa had come out in defence of the applicant, arguing that the works on site did not constitute development and were therefore not in breach of the enforcement notice.
Although before yesterday’s sitting the recommendation was for an approval of the permit, the case officer’s assessment noted that the development did not comply with the maximum allowable floor space of 200 square metres in ODZ. It exceeded the limit by another 120 square metres, resulting in a total floor space of 350 square metres.
In terms of scale and massing, the additions proposed for sanctioning did not reflect the size and proportions of the original building. The extensions were not compatible with the streetscape, particularly since the neighbouring property on the northern area was one-storey high.
The additions proposed for sanctioning were carried out after 1994.