The Planning Authority has dismissed an appeal filed by residents against the construction of a six-storey home for the elderly on the site of the former two-storey Porziuncola Retreat House on the outskirts of Madliena.

The PA threw out the residents’ arguments that the permit had been issued on the basis of incorrect information, that there were procedural errors and that the developer failed to put up notices on site.

The home, designed by architect Colin Zammit, was granted a permit in late 2021. Despite the appeal having been filed, the retreat house was demolished and the ground floor of the new home has already been built.

The house was founded in 1957 and named after the chapel where Francis of Assisi discovered his evangelical calling in 1208. It was operated by the Franciscan friars, who will pocket some €30 million over 65 years from a deal with the developer, Katari Holdings owner Paul Attard.

The 200-room care home will stand 20 metres tall and will overshadow the area, which is dominated by low-lying buildings, according to residents. Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq and Madliena residents argued that the missing notices of the two applications covering the development allowed the permitting process to go completely under the radar. In fact, there was not a single official objection.

The Franciscan friars will pocket some €30 million over 65 years from a deal with the developer

The PA board said this would not render the application process flawed.

Also, claims that documentation submitted by the applicant were erroneous and misleading were unfounded. Furthermore, the invocation of an article in the Planning Act for the revocation of a permit could not be used to reassess the application.

Lawyer Claire Bonello, on behalf of the residents, argued that applications did not include all the street names surrounding the development and this constituted an error on the face of the record.

She also argued that there was a major difference between a retreat home and a retirement home, and the planning commission had been misguided since these were considered as having the same use.

The PA, upholding arguments by the applicant’s lawyer Ryan Pace, countered that there was no distinction between the two on planning grounds and they fell within the same class of use.

Only NGO representative Romano Cassar voted in favour of revoking the permit, with the rest of the board members dismissing the request.