The Ombudsman has found that 36 stables were approved in recent years for horses already covered by another permit for other stables.
The investigation also revealed that the number of stables in out-of-development areas approved by the PA since 2016 was "excessive".
In 2023, Times of Malta reported that, according to industry sources, agricultural landowners have found a loophole that allows them to register horses they do not own and apply for a permit to build stables, leading to multiple stables being registered on the same horse.
Applications for the development of horse stables in ODZ require an official declaration of horse ownership or registration.
Times of Malta was back then told it has become practice to sell the passport of a deceased horse to a prospective applicant for the development of stables. The same passport is then used for multiple applications for stables.
A separate practice sees horse owners transferring their horses – on paper only – to prospective horse stable applicants. The latter apply for a horse stable but the horses are never physically transferred to them.
In 2024, the Commissioner for Environment and Planning, within the office of the Ombudsman, launched a comprehensive Own Initiative Investigation looking into permits issued for stables since the implementation of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance in 2014.
An Own Initiative Investigation means that the Ombudsman's Office is looking into an issue on its own steam without waiting for a member of the public to file a complaint.
On Tuesday the office said it had concluded that the number of stables in ODZ that have been approved by the PA since 2016 was "excessive, against the spirit of SPED and definitely unsustainable".
Furthermore, the PA failed to control compliance with the conditions the PA itself imposed in the same permits, the office added.
According to the ombudsman's investigation, the PA does not check whether the equine was already registered under a previous permit - so much so that 36 stables were permitted for equines that already had a permit in their name.
In two instances, the commissioner adds, three permits were issued for the same equine and other permits referred to equine details that are illegible.
1022 stables approved in eight years
The commissioner found that between 2016 and 2024, the PA approved a total of 1,022 stables in 298 separate permits.
39 of these permits sanctioned 137 stables that were already constructed.
There are a further 88 applications for 328 stables (including 16 applications to sanction 61 stables) awaiting a decision by the Planning Authority and 10 applications for 50 stables (including one application to sanction five stables) awaiting a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.
Almost all of these permits approved the construction of new stables in ODZ.
No permits for the change of use from stables to dwellings were traced.
What the commissioner recommended:
1. PA should make sure no application for stables is validated unless it includes the number of stables being proposed and a list of equines (name and standard number such as microchip number) registered under the applicant issued by the Veterinary Regulation Directorate (VRD). The number of stables in the application should always be equal to or less than the number of equines in the list.
2. VRD registration list should be included as an approved document (not as a supporting document) in the permit.
3. Permits should be issued for a period of three years on condition that the structures should be dismantled unless the permit is renewed.
4. PA should keep a list of the details of all equines to make sure only one permit is issued for each equine.
5. The Rural Policy Design Guidance should be modified so that these recommendations are endorsed and an area of 20 square metres per stable for the first three stables and an area of 15 square metres per each additional stable applies on all new applications.
6. PA should make sure all permit conditions are complied with and when a condition imposes the submission of certain information within a specified period, the PA system brings up the relative PA file for examination accordingly.
7. Final Compliance Certificates should be uploaded in the relative PA files.
What now?
After the PA failed to implement the office's recommendations, the commissioner referred the case to the House of Representatives.
In his report he explained he had given the PA an additional extension of one month to reply to its investigation, after which - in early December 2024 - the office referred the Final Opinion to the Prime Minister.
Following this, the PA replied that it did not have any issues with recommendations six and seven and would implement them within the least possible time.
It however raised certain issues in relation to the other points, namely that for certain recommendations to be applied, there needs to be a change in the RPDG or support/collaboration with the VRD.
The PA added that abstracts from certain points and points three and five will be put forward for consideration in the review of the RPDG and if taken onboard will be adopted in the revision of the policy.
The PA and the Agriculture Ministry then engaged in discussions involving cooperation in the management, control, collating and sharing of data for better control measures from the VRD side and in conditions of permits issued. The PA said it was committed to introducing a more meticulous regime in the issuing and monitoring of these permits.
While welcoming the acceptance of recommendations six and seven, the commissioner conveyed it was not acceptable that the first four "rather simple" recommendations were not implemented with immediate effect. In relation to the fifth recommendation - although it is acknowledged that this would require changes in the RPDG - the PA was bound to move the relative changes as soon as possible as the statistics found were not sustainable.
Following no reply from the PA to the latter request indicating no changes for effective enforcement of the relative permit conditions, and following the publication of further permits not respecting findings and recommendations in the final opinion, the case was referred to the House of Representatives in line with the Ombudsman Act.