A planning commission yesterday renewed a permit to build two semi-detached villas and a villa in the outskirts of Rabat, much to the dismay of residents.

The renewal was contested by a number of residents who turned up for the hearing, partly because the development sits in an area of Rabat that has been designated for protection.

Architect Carmel Cacopardo, who spoke on their behalf, argued against the renewal on the grounds that the permit went against planning policies for the area. During the hearing, architect Joseph Grech pointed out that his client has asked for a renewal because he wanted to continue building “without being rushed” but would not need the full five years allowed in the renewed permit.

Mr Cacopardo told commission chairwoman Sandra Magro that two wrongs did not make a right and that, therefore, the permit should not be extended.

However, Ms Magro pointed out that it was not within the commission’s remit to state whether the permit had been incorrectly issued and added that residents had the right to appeal.

The permit was approved by four votes to one. According to procedure, the board was to see whether there had been a change in policy since the permit was granted, she said. If not, then there was no reason why the permit should not be renewed.

The development had come under the scrutiny of the planning authority’s outgoing auditor Joe Falzon who had slammed a Development Control Commission for granting a permit in 2004 after previous requests had been turned down, including an appeal.

In his report, requested by journalist Victor Vella and Rabat residents because it had not been made public, Mr Falzon said the development commission was “solely responsible for approving an application contrary to established policies because they approved a development that had been refused on at least two other occasions when there had been no amendments to official policies”.

The commission had approved an application “that was objectionable in principle and was not assessed in detail by the planning directorate”. As a result, “important considerations such as the archaeological importance of the site were ignored,” Mr Falzon said.

Through their actions, the development commission “rendered the provisions of the local plan, which was in the process of being prepared, irrelevant”. The commission had been warned of this by the local plan unit, he added.

However, Mr Falzon pointed out that no redress could be offered “as there are no grounds for the permit’s withdrawal”.