Last week, Times of Malta reported that a massive residential project in Qala to build 165 apartments is being put together through applications filed by different people who all link back to Gozo developer Joseph Portelli. 

In a response to that article sent as a right of reply, the developer wrote of a “state of the art, attractive project which is respectful of its context and environment” and which amounts to a “substantial investment in the region of €15 million”.

Objection 1

The developer, J Portelli Projects, takes issue with the description of the development in the article as one of the largest residential developments Gozo has ever seen.

“This is not quite true,” the developer states. “There are at least three other developments which are substantially bigger. In addition, in terms of height, our application for 4-5 storeys was perfectly within all the laws, schemes and regulations governing the site.”

Fact

The developer does not specify the three other “substantially” larger residential projects in Gozo. Times of Malta’s article did not go into the merits of height and its conformity to laws or policies.

Objection 2

J Portelli Projects also insists it made no ‘false declarations’ as the story alleges. By law, and also as decided by court, if the owner is a co-owner, he/she can still apply as a sole owner.”

Fact

The official Certificate of Ownership that is being published here shows that up to last January 3, when the document was obtained from the Land Registry, the holder of the emphyteusis was Carravan Company Limited.

Neither J Portelli Projects nor any of the individuals who applied for the permit are connected to Carravan in official company registration records. All four applications for two of the blocks in which the applicants declared sole ownership were lodged prior to last January 3, and there are no records of the applicants having been co-owners at the time of applying.

In a sentence by Judge Edwina Grima in the Court of Criminal Appeal three years ago, it was taken as a given that a co-owner making a declaration of “sole owner” is still a false declaration within the terms of the criminal code and, separately, the Development Planning Act. In that case – each case has its differences and dynamics – the accused was eventually acquitted on the balanced reasoning that he had not gained “any advantage or benefit for himself or others” as qualified in criminal law, and additionally because his false declaration was devoid of the “material respect” in planning law. 

Applications submitted to the Planning Authority showing false declarations of ownership.Applications submitted to the Planning Authority showing false declarations of ownership.

Objection 3

J Portelli Projects also writes: “Your journalist says that once the permits were granted, we conducted ‘illegal excavation’. Again, this gives a distorted picture. The truth is that we contracted a third party to carry out the excavation on our site. Erroneously, he also excavated a 4ft x 100ft slice adjacent to our site and which did not belong to us. Once this mistake was discovered we obliged the contactor to return [sic] the land and soil to its original state at his expense. The job took no more [sic] than a day.”

Fact

Measurements taken on official maps published by the Planning Authority show the “slice” of land to be around 40 feet by 100 feet.

Moreover, in two of the adjoining blocks, the developer also carried out excavations in breach of original permit conditions, and then applied to sanction this larger excavation in two applications filed last September.

These were the two applications that were approved last Tuesday: sanctioning of the excavation for the underground garage and supplanting of the garages initially intended for the ground floor by additional flats.

Objection 4

As to applying in a fragmentary approach and in stages, as opposed to applying for the entire project as one development, the developer says the “real reason is simple and transparent. Joseph Portelli Projects sells around 800 apartments a year across the Maltese islands. If in the development of each of them we applied under a single director or owner, there is the risk that should there be a legal issue with even just one apartment, it might affect the progress of entire projects.”

Fact

Lawyers consulted by Times of Malta explained that if someone had a legal contestation on one flat, then the legal action – for example, an injunction or garnishee order – would usually be limited to that one flat or its worth.

One lawyer said that it would be inconceivable for a lawyer to advise a client to file action against an entire block of flats because that overreach would expose the complainant to eventual massive claims for damages by the developer.

The lawyer added that it is common for large developers with multiple projects to set up separate companies for each project, but he has never come across a developer who separates a single project into different entities.

Objection 5

The developer says that nothing “prohibits piecemeal applications. Indeed, the authority processed the applications in question jointly and two of them were decided on the same day. Hence, from a planning angle, there was no benefit or gain in the submission of separate applications.”

Fact

Scrutiny of PA applications documentation only yielded evidence that the two applications decided last Tuesday, when the underground garages of two adjoining blocks were unified, were “assessed simultaneously.”

Objection 6

“Finally,” the developer’s letter states, “your journalist tries to give the impression that somehow we are sneakily planning illegalities on our ODZ land adjacent to our built-up areas. This is absolutely untrue. The amenities planned for this ODZ are part of our land – paddock, pool, windmill, gazebo, fish pond, lawned barbecue and picnic areas and kids playing area – are all permissible on ODZ land.”

Fact

The article stated that these facilities pitched on promotional material fall beyond the development zones, and that no application for a permit is present on the Planning Authority’s server.

Whether these facilities are permitted or not is determined by the authority once an application is processed and decided.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.