The scandalous approval of the redevelopment of a 31-square-metre ruin in a remote part of Qala’s countryside, into a villa with pool on expansive grounds, could take the award for one of the most inexplicable decisions taken by the Planning Authority in its 25-year history.

For an authority long dogged by opprobrium, this is the lowest of the low. The fact the developer yesterday renounced the permit amid major public outrage does not change how misguided it was.  

The application was clearly against the policy which lays down that the residential use of a building Outside Development Zone has to have had been “legally established” by 1978.

The death of someone in the area a century ago is not proof, as submitted by the developers, that the ruin was a former residence. In fact, The Sunday Times of Malta dug out a document that shows the person in question actually resided elsewhere in the village. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant’s claims on residential status are spurious.

Within this context, it was almost surreal to hear Labour MP and PA board member Clayton Bartolo cite evidence of past residence. And even if proof of past residence were to have been convincingly established, it wasn’t a residence in 1978 – hence the application could not be approved under the terms of the policy.

The Rural Policy and Design Guidance of 2014 may be faulty – and the process to review it is an admission of its flaws – but a review would have no effect in a situation in which the PA’s highest board feels no obligation to observe the current policy.

This is especially shocking after the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal and Court of Appeal both held that ‘residential use’ had to be established by 1978 at the earliest. 

Neither did the deputy chair of the board, Elizabeth Ellul, take any heed of last June’s judgment of the Court of Appeal on points of recusal. The permit for the DB skyscraper in Pembroke was revoked by Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti on issues of ‘objective impartiality’. Similar issues apply to Ms Ellul in this case: her husband has done work for one of the developers, Joseph Portelli, in another project, and the Planning Commission she chairs had instructed the directorate to prepare conditions for permit. Mr Justice Chetcuti’s sentence, as well as jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, make her ‘objectively biased’ – she should have recused herself.

This leads to another point: the unaccountability of the planning board. The board does not even have to provide justification for decisions that fly in the face of policies, such as this one.

Bartolo’s vote for the development also stands out particularly sorely. Not only did he state that the residential status of the ruin was evident – which is irrelevant given the terms of the policy – but his vote signifies disregard for the wider objections of the pool villa.

The project goes against any notion of social and environmental justice, which are values that supposedly guide the Labour Party – Mr Bartolo’s vote signifies a betrayal of those values.

Prior to 2013, Joseph Muscat had repeatedly said that, while a Labour government would reform planning policies pertaining to rural development, it would not allow construction such as the Baħrija farmhouse redevelopment saga that had in previous years led to the resignation of PN president Victor Scerri.

Just over six years later, under his watch, an MP from his party and his PA representative spoke up for and voted for a project that is yet more objectionable given the diminutiveness of the ruins in Qala. The PN, the Church and even the Labour Party’s own have voiced outrage at the decision.

Last Thursday’s vote opened the door wider for corruptibility in planning applications. In this situation, the only short-term solutions are a moratorium on applications for ODZ until review of the policy, disbanding of the planning board and appointment of a new one. The present, save for a few members, has lost all credibility.

The permit for the Qala villa needs to be revoked forthwith. Yesterday’s decision to renounce the permit also shows how crucial it is for the public, NGOs and politicians of goodwill to speak out against what is blatantly wrong.