Gozo Developer Fights Court Ruling on Pools

In recent developments on the island of Gozo, a controversial real estate project spearheaded by property tycoon Joseph Portelli faces legal challenges after a court ruling declared that the swimming pools part of the development were built illegally. The business partner of Portelli, Mark Agius, also known as Ta' Dirjanu, has now filed multiple applications to reverse the decision, seeking to sanction the swimming pools and potentially eliminate part of an old public footpath, further complicating the situation.

This article delves into the ongoing legal and planning battles surrounding the development in the village of Sannat, examining the implications of the court’s ruling and the potential ramifications for future planning in Malta.

The Background of the Development

The property in question is part of a major real estate project in Sannat, Gozo, led by Joseph Portelli, one of the island's most well-known property developers. The development involves the construction of two apartment blocks, one consisting of 29 flats and the other housing 22 flats. The project was initially approved by the Planning Authority (PA) back in 2021, and it was anticipated to significantly alter the landscape of this rural area.

However, the approval process has not been without controversy. While the apartment blocks themselves were permitted to be constructed in the development zone (DZ), the proposed locations for the two swimming pools fell outside of the designated development zone, within what is known as an Outside Development Zone (ODZ). This distinction is crucial because ODZ areas are typically protected from development to preserve the natural environment and prevent urban sprawl.

Despite this, the Planning Authority approved the swimming pools in the ODZ, allowing a 215-square-meter pool area for the larger apartment block and a 177-square-meter pool area for the smaller one. However, the controversy intensified due to the geographical layout of the site, which placed a long-standing public footpath between the apartment blocks and the pool areas. This footpath, shown on a map dating back to 1968, has been used by locals for years and forms an integral part of the community’s infrastructure.

The Legal Challenges and Court Ruling

The approval of the swimming pools was met with strong opposition from several parties, including the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA). The ERA argued that the development should be restricted to the development zone and should not extend into an ODZ. Despite these objections, the Planning Authority granted the necessary permits, and the decision was upheld by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT).

However, the legal troubles escalated in 2024 when Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti ruled that the Planning Authority and the EPRT had misinterpreted and misapplied the relevant policies regarding development in ODZ areas. The ruling highlighted the issue of the public footpath, noting that the pool areas were located on the opposite side of the path, separate from the apartment blocks. As a result, the approval for the swimming pools was revoked, and the developers were left with illegal structures that had been built without the necessary legal permits.

The Chief Justice’s ruling essentially invalidated the approval granted by the Planning Authority, placing the entire project in legal limbo. The ruling also brought attention to a wider issue in Malta’s planning system: the leniency with which certain developers have been allowed to bypass regulations, raising questions about the effectiveness of the country’s planning controls.

Agius’s New Applications to Sanction the Pools

In response to the court’s ruling, Mark Agius, acting as the business partner of Joseph Portelli, filed two separate planning applications in September 2024 to sanction the two swimming pool areas. The applications aim to have the pools legalized, despite the court’s ruling, and pave the way for their continued use. The applications are now under review by the Planning Authority.

In addition to the pool sanctioning applications, Agius also submitted a planning control application. This application seeks to eliminate the section of the public footpath that separates the apartment blocks from the pool areas. If successful, the removal of the footpath would reclassify the area as “private open space,” potentially clearing the way for the pools to be approved as part of the development.

However, this move has stirred further controversy. Opponents of the project argue that the removal of the public footpath could undermine the integrity of the area’s planning and reduce access to the public space. The footpath has been an established route for local residents for decades, and its removal would likely cause significant opposition from the community.

At present, both the applications to sanction the swimming pools and the planning control application are awaiting recommendations from the case officers at the Planning Authority. However, surveys of the area still need to be completed before a final decision can be made.

The Development’s Progress Despite Legal Setbacks

Despite the ongoing legal issues, the development itself has continued to progress. Both swimming pools have already been built, even though the development was under appeal. This is a significant point of concern, as the Planning Authority did not issue an enforcement notice to halt construction after the court’s ruling in March 2024.

The Prime Minister of Malta, Robert Abela, has promised to introduce legislative changes to address such situations, where developments proceed despite pending legal appeals. However, these reforms have not yet been presented to the public or tabled in Parliament. The lack of action on this front has drawn criticism from environmentalists and local communities, who argue that more robust measures are needed to prevent the bypassing of legal controls in the future.

The Broader Implications of the Case

This ongoing legal battle highlights several important issues within Malta’s planning system. It brings into question the balance between development and environmental preservation, particularly in ODZ areas. The case also raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the Planning Authority, which has been criticized for granting permits in questionable circumstances.

The Sannat development is not an isolated case. Over the years, Malta has seen several high-profile projects that have sparked public outcry due to their location in protected areas or their impact on the environment. This case is a reminder that the Planning Authority’s decisions often face legal challenges, and in some instances, those challenges result in the reversal of permits that were granted under questionable circumstances.

Moreover, the potential removal of the public footpath, a vital part of the local community’s infrastructure, is indicative of the growing tensions between developers and local residents. The case highlights the need for more comprehensive and transparent planning policies that balance development goals with the preservation of public spaces.

Conclusion

As the case continues to unfold, the fate of the two swimming pools and the broader Sannat development remains uncertain. The legal process has already revealed serious flaws in the way planning approvals are granted in Malta, especially in areas that are supposed to be protected from development.

The case also underscores the importance of maintaining public access to spaces such as footpaths, which are vital for community connectivity and environmental sustainability. As the Planning Authority reviews the applications, it remains to be seen whether the developers will succeed in overturning the court’s decision or if further legal action will be required.

FAQs

What was the issue with the swimming pools in the Sannat development?
The swimming pools were built outside the designated development zone (ODZ), which led to a court ruling declaring them illegal.

Why did the Planning Authority approve the swimming pools in the ODZ?
The Planning Authority approved the pools based on a policy that allows small pool areas in ODZ areas under certain conditions. However, this was later contested in court.

What is the significance of the public footpath in the Sannat case?
The footpath, which separates the apartment blocks from the pool areas, is a longstanding public space. Its removal is being proposed to facilitate the sanctioning of the swimming pools.

What is Mark Agius trying to achieve with his planning applications?
Agius is seeking to have the swimming pools sanctioned and is also applying to have the public footpath removed, potentially reclassifying the area as private open space.

Has the development continued despite legal challenges?
Yes, the swimming pools were built even though the development was under legal appeal. The Planning Authority did not issue an enforcement notice against the construction.

What is the current status of the planning applications?
The applications to sanction the swimming pools and remove the footpath are awaiting recommendations from the Planning Authority’s case officers.

Why has the Prime Minister not introduced legislative changes yet?
The Prime Minister has promised reforms to address development issues during legal appeals but has yet to present any proposed changes in Parliament.

What concerns have been raised by environmentalists regarding this case?
Environmentalists are concerned about the development of ODZ areas, as well as the potential removal of public footpaths, which could limit public access to important community spaces.

How does this case reflect broader issues with planning in Malta?
The case highlights the leniency of the Planning Authority in approving developments in protected areas and the lack of effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

What could be the future implications of this case for developers in Malta?
If successful, this case could set a precedent for future developments in ODZ areas, potentially opening the door for more controversial projects to be sanctioned despite legal and environmental concerns.