The Planning Authority has once again failed to decide on an application to build a mega-block of apartments near the idyllic Sannat cliffs, after consultation requested last month failed to materialise in time for Tuesday's sitting.
The commission was meant to decide on PA/02087/21, an application by Mark Agius to build 73 flats and 60 garages in Sannat.
However, activists have highlighted how the application is one of three in a cluster in developer Joseph Portelli’s portfolio that will ultimately create 125 apartments just 300 metres from the cliff edge.
Critics have denounced the project and said that “salami-slicing” the mega-development into three applications is an attempt by developers to bypass increased scrutiny that a larger project would have to undertake, such as an environmental impact assessment.
The two other applications in the trio have already been approved by the commission, despite being recommended for refusal by the PA’s own case officer.
During the first sitting on this application held last month, the commission decided to defer a decision on the project, citing the need to consult with the PA’s executive council for guidance on how to interpret policy relating to the application.
The executive council is chaired by PA boss Martin Saliba.
Murmurs of dissent
On Tuesday, commission chair Stephania Baldacchino informed parties that the council has not yet sent its feedback and as such, she felt that the commission could not proceed with processing the application.
This caused a stir amongst objectors, who argued that there was no basis in planning policy for the PA’s executive council to opine on the matter, when it had already received policy interpretation from the planning directorate, which has recommended the application for refusal.
Architect Saviour Micallef interjected to say that the planning application was not being justified by the development already committed through other applications, but through a planning control application that had set out parameters for acceptable development on the site.
After a prolonged back and forth, Baldacchino said that the commission was well within its rights to seek further guidance when it felt that the interpretation of policy has been unclear.
“As I have said multiple times, it is useless to discuss this report because the direction we are seeking is on whether the local plan has been interpreted correctly,” she said.
“We cannot just take everything the planning directorate says as sacrosanct, we must also verify things from our end as well. Case officers are only human and it’s not the first time that mistakes have been made.”
“This is a very normal process and if the law allows us to consult, why shouldn’t we?”
The case was deferred to March 11.
In a statement, Movement Graffiti, who are objecting to the project, said the move was yet another “mess” in Malta’s chequered planning process.
“Instead of outright refusing this obscene development,” the Planning Commission is grasping at straws to go against the case officer’s recommendation and approve this monstrosity,” they said.
“This is an authority that rolls out the red carpet for developers.”