In the heat of summer, and the distractions of Santa Maria, some of you may have missed one of those Planning Authority decisions that go blatantly against an Appeal Court decision.

Briefly, the facts are that application PA2035/21, to excavate a site and construct 29 apartments, 20 basement garages and a pool, in a site in Sannat, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 5, 2021, in spite of several breaches of policy that were highlighted by a number of entities, including Din l-Art Ħelwa.

An appeal was subsequently filed by DLĦ but the Appeals Tribunal confirmed the approval of the permit. Since, in our view, the breaches of policy were blatant, and dangerous, it was decided to bring the case to the Court of Appeal.

On March 13 this year, the court agreed that the approved pool, located completely outside the development zone, and the penthouse floor level should not have been approved without the relative setback and decreed that this part of the relative permit was, therefore, revoked.

In its wisdom, the EPRT Appeals Tribunal had not agreed with our request to suspend the permit while the case was decided, so, by the time the court revoked the permit for those parts of the project that were in violation of policy, the place was already built and sold.

Following the court decision, an application was duly made to amend the PA2035/21 permit to remove the offending pool and penthouse level.

Of course, no action was taken to remove the parts that had been illegally built. Well, nothing very surprising here – when did the PA ever remove anything built illegally?

But the real twist happened even as this minor amendment was being processed. Tarlochan Singh, who declared himself not to be an owner of the property, applied to sanction two of the illegal penthouses, (PA 3869/24), via what is known as a ‘summary procedure’.

The details of the policy breaches are not the subject of this contribution but the breathless arrogance of the PA is.

A ‘summary procedure’ is one which is allowed under article 18 of the Development Planning Act.

Basically, it allows an application to be processed within six weeks. The key requirement in the law is that the application has to be accompanied by a report that explains how the application complies with all plans, policies and regulations, before it could be accepted by the executive chairperson as qualifying for the ‘summary procedure’.

Have we really reached the stage where the PA can thumb its nose at the Court of Appeal with impunity?- Alex Torpiano

So the question is: how could the executive chairperson accept any statement by the applicant (or any planning officer) that the proposal conformed to “all plans, policies and regulations” when, in addition to the observations previously made by independent entities such as the Environment and Resources Authority and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, an Appeal Court decision, barely four months old, had unequivocally declared the same proposal as in breach of polices, plans and regulations?

Have we really reached the stage where the PA can thumb its nose at the Court of Appeal with impunity? And is the minister responsible for planning not concerned that the authority is so blatantly undermining the rule of law – or are we living under a different rule, that governed by developers?

Are our MPs not concerned that, in spite of all the promises that the country would take “difficult but desperately needed decisions on environment and quality of life” these underhand manoeuvres in favour of big, party-financing, developers still go on – even to the extent of directly challenging an Appeals Court decision? Ignoring the courts is a very dangerous development for a democracy, not least for the wider implications for all the citizens of Malta, who look to the courts for redress.

And, talking of promises, could the prime minister remember the promise made on May 1, 2023, that a better system of handling requests for suspension of permits subject to appeal would be implemented?

If people are allowed to build on the basis of questionable permits while under appeal, when eventually this illegality is decided and declared it would become very painful for the illegally built property to be removed – and this has been demonstrated many times.

At this stage, it seems to be wiser to proceed to build without planning permission because it would always be possible to sanction what has already been built – or, perhaps, this route is only available to some who are more equal than others.

Alex Torpiano is vice president of Din l-Art Ħelwa.