Changes to a controversial planning permit sought by construction magnate Charles Polidano have been given the green light by the Planning Authority despite a history of illegalities on site.

Mr Polidano was granted a permit in 2014 to renovate three ­adjoining town houses on Main Street, Balzan, and extend them into their gardens as well as adding a four-car parking area. The permit is being appealed.

The same site in 2002, before the start of illegal works.

The changes allow for further restoration works, the construction of a swimming pool and other alterations and additions. The three properties are all Grade 2 scheduled buildings within the Balzan urban conservation area and close to the parish church, one dating back to the British period and another to that of the Knights of St John. The gardens extend into a green enclave.

The first permit for the site proved controversial as Mr Polidano is appealing a court fine of €100,000 for the unsanctioned uprooting of several old trees and the destruction of a rubble wall in the gardens.

Other enforcement notices, which are still pending, were issued for the illegal demolition of part of the buildings and walls as well as other structures in the back gardens.

The planning directorate said back in 2014 that the project could go ahead despite the illegalities because the works would not be affected by the proposed development.

The application for alterations to the approved permit, including the new swimming pool, was initially recommended for refusal by the directorate, which said the proposals for demolition were in conflict with planning policy.

The application was approved yesterday after revisions to the plans and inspections by the Heritage Planning Unit. The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage also gave its go-ahead to the development.

A nearby resident, Reuben Farrugia, objected to the proposal on a number of grounds, including that the development would have an adverse effect on the picturesque alley and that the encroachment on the gardens ran counter to a number of planning policies.

Mr Farrugia argued that the nature of the application and the illegalities on site meant that the application should be refused outright.