The Planning Authority’s failure to take the initiative following the revelations on the multi-million euro building project in Qala demonstrates that impunity remains unimpeded in the planning sector.

A Times of Malta investigation found that the more than 150 flats and ancillary facilities – one of Gozo’s largest all-time residential developments – have been split into four parts, avoiding the potential scrutiny of an Environment Impact Assessment in the application process. And in two of those parts, consisting of 31 flats each, the two applicants declared they were the ‘sole owner’ of the sites – false claims according to notarial and Land Registry documents.

False declarations of ownership are an offence in criminal and planning laws. But instead of investigating and taking action, the PA approved an additional two proposals by the same two applicants one day after the Times of Malta published its first report. The PA refers to the reports – as well as a request by NGO Repubblika to withhold publication of permits – as assertions. It holds that someone has to make legal submissions before the PA investigates and proceeds. 

Legal experts maintain that the PA would have been within its rights to withhold the latest two permits, especially after a judgment of the Constitutional Court last November 28.

The judgment held that once a complaint is made, then the PA has to put the onus on the applicant to certify ownership as defined in planning law.

Failing that, an application should be dismissed or, if granted, then presumably voided.

As for the earlier permits involving the two individuals, the PA has obligations under planning law, which provides that a false declaration of ownership can be grounds for revocation if it had a material bearing on the approval of the proposed development. This is something that also emerges from the Constitutional Court judgment mentioned above.

Whether or not the declarations affected the outcome of the application, the point here is that once these revelations were published, or made in complaint (as Repubblika did), then the PA has shirked its responsibility by failing to subject the case to a rigorous due process as provided in planning law.

This would examine if the developer should have applied for the project in one application and as a result have had the project subjected to an EIA. That finding would in turn be possible grounds for revocation. 

Instead, the PA’s responses to Times of Malta demonstrate that it is ignoring that part of the law stating it can initiate proceedings “out of its own motion”, and that it prefers to put the onus on civil society to initiate proceedings.

The cost of doing so on civil society is prohibitive: an application fee of €500 was imposed last year without any consultation, plus hundreds more in lawyer’s costs. The Ombudsman has argued against the fee to no avail.

In championing the PA’s attitude in its comments, the new planning and environment minister Aaron Farrugia also risks turning the sense of hope that greeted his appointment into dismay.

More worryingly, the PA’s  apparent impassiveness after media revelations serves to intensify the risk of journalists facing some sort of retribution.

Unless the institutions follow up with investigations and action, journalists are left to stand alone against powerful actors whose schemes are revealed.