Planning Authority sanctions illegal penthouses in Sannat

The Planning Authority (PA) has officially approved the sanctioning of a row of penthouses in Sannat, Gozo, despite a definitive ruling by Malta’s highest court declaring the development illegal. This decision has ignited widespread controversy among legal experts, local residents, and environmental NGOs, raising questions about compliance, accountability, and governance within Malta’s planning framework.

The penthouses in question were developed by prominent Gozitan businessman Joseph Portelli, in collaboration with his associates Mark Agius, widely known as Ta’ Dirjanu, and Daniel Refalo. The development had already faced a significant legal setback when, in March 2024, the Court of Appeal struck it down as illegal.

Court of Appeal Ruling Declares Development Illegal

In the March 2024 judgment, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti delivered a decisive ruling against the development. The Court found that the penthouses, along with two swimming pools constructed on land designated outside development zones (ODZ), were unlawful. The judgment explicitly stated that the permits for these constructions should be revoked.

“The penthouses and associated structures contravene established planning regulations, and the permits issued should be nullified,” Chief Justice Chetcuti stated in the Court’s written decision.

Despite this clear verdict, the Planning Authority has now moved forward to sanction the same penthouses, a decision that many legal analysts describe as unusual and potentially unprecedented.

Planning Commission Session Raises Eyebrows

The decision was made during a surreal session of the Planning Commission, where only Architect Saviour Micallef appeared on behalf of foreign employees representing Portelli. Elizabeth Ellul, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, presided over the meeting and approved the sanctioning of the illegal penthouses.

As part of the administrative process, Portelli was fined €150 for contravening the law. However, he publicly downplayed the Court’s ruling, claiming that Chief Justice Chetcuti’s judgment was merely “an interpretation.” This statement has fueled criticism from legal experts and members of civil society, who argue that the law should be applied strictly, irrespective of personal interpretations.

Ellul, together with two other Gozitan members, Cornelia Tabone and Pierre Hili, voted in favor of the sanctioning. The Planning Directorate presented legal arguments asserting that the Court of Appeal’s decision could be set aside because the illegal penthouses allegedly still conformed to local development plans and broader policy frameworks.

New Applications Filed to Sanction Illegal Constructions

Following the Court’s judgment, Joseph Portelli initiated new applications through two third-country employees, Klevis Hoxhaj and Eledon Koci. These applications, registered as PA05625/24 and PA05626/24, sought retroactive approval for the illegal penthouses.

On Tuesday, the Planning Commission officially endorsed these applications, effectively sanctioning the previously illegal constructions and overturning the Court of Appeal’s judgment. This decision has prompted significant outrage among NGOs, local residents, and environmental advocates, who view it as a disregard for judicial authority.

Implications for the Rule of Law

The Planning Authority operates under the oversight of the Maltese judiciary, and as such, is generally expected to respect and implement court rulings. Critics argue that the PA’s decision to sanction illegal development sets a concerning precedent, potentially undermining judicial authority and the rule of law in Malta.

Legal scholars point out that retroactively approving developments declared illegal could encourage similar attempts by other developers, eroding public trust in Malta’s planning and judicial systems.

Environmental and Community Concerns

The penthouses are located in Sannat, Gozo, an area recognized for its scenic landscapes and limited development. NGOs have emphasized that the construction not only violated planning regulations but also contravened environmental protection principles designed to safeguard Gozo’s rural character.

Local activists have expressed their frustration, arguing that sanctioning illegal developments sends a negative message to communities that abide by planning laws. “It appears that wealth and influence can override legal frameworks,” one environmental advocate remarked anonymously.

Future Legal Challenges

It remains unclear whether NGOs or other concerned parties will pursue additional legal action to contest the Planning Authority’s decision. Options may include filing a new appeal or initiating contempt of court proceedings against the Planning Commission and its members. Legal analysts suggest that these avenues are complex and could take years to resolve.

Meanwhile, Portelli and his associates have submitted further applications to sanction the two illegal ODZ swimming pools connected to the penthouse development. This request, filed under PA226/25 and submitted by Mark Agius, seeks approval despite the Court of Appeal’s prior ruling, further fueling public controversy.

If the PA approves the pools, it would represent a continuation of the sanctioning trend for developments previously declared illegal, raising questions about consistency in policy enforcement and adherence to environmental and planning laws.

Broader Implications for Malta’s Planning System

This case highlights the tensions within Malta’s planning system between judicial oversight, administrative authority, and developer interests. Legal experts warn that retroactive approvals of illegal developments could undermine public confidence in both planning and judicial institutions.

The decision also underscores potential gaps in governance, where personal or corporate influence may affect decision-making within public authorities. While fines have been imposed, many argue that monetary penalties are insufficient deterrents when legal rulings are openly challenged or disregarded.

Perspectives from the Planning Authority

The Planning Directorate justified its decision by stating that the penthouses still complied with local plans and other policy guidelines, despite being outside the development zone. They argued that the Court’s interpretation did not fully consider the broader planning context and asserted that administrative discretion allowed for sanctioning under certain conditions.

However, legal commentators have questioned whether administrative discretion can be used to bypass a definitive court ruling. The balance between regulatory flexibility and judicial authority remains a point of debate, particularly in sensitive areas such as environmental protection and land use.

Community and NGO Reactions

NGOs and local residents have voiced strong opposition to the Planning Authority’s sanctioning of the penthouses. Many argue that this move favors developers over community interests and legal principles.

One NGO representative stated, “We are deeply concerned that the Planning Authority is disregarding clear court decisions. This sets a dangerous precedent for Gozo and for Malta as a whole.”

The public outcry highlights the importance of transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal frameworks in the planning process. Failure to address these concerns may lead to heightened tensions between developers, authorities, and civil society.

Conclusion

The sanctioning of the illegal penthouses in Sannat, Gozo, marks a controversial moment in Malta’s planning and legal landscape. While the Planning Authority has approved retroactive approvals, the decision challenges the authority of the Court of Appeal and raises broader questions about governance, legal compliance, and environmental protection.

As legal challenges continue and public debate intensifies, this case serves as a critical example of the tensions that can arise when development interests clash with judicial rulings and community expectations. The outcome of potential appeals and enforcement actions will likely shape the future of Malta’s planning system for years to come.

FAQs

What did the Court of Appeal rule regarding the Sannat penthouses?
The Court of Appeal declared the penthouses and associated ODZ pools illegal and ruled that their permits should be revoked.

Who developed the illegal penthouses in Sannat?
The development was carried out by Joseph Portelli in collaboration with Mark Agius (Ta’ Dirjanu) and Daniel Refalo.

How did the Planning Authority justify sanctioning the penthouses?
The Planning Authority argued that the penthouses still conformed to local plans and policies, allowing them to override the Court’s decision.

Were any fines imposed on the developer?
Yes, Joseph Portelli was fined €150 for breaking the law.

What is the role of the Planning Commission in this case?
The Planning Commission reviewed the applications to sanction the illegal penthouses and ultimately approved them, despite the prior Court ruling.

Can NGOs challenge the Planning Authority’s decision?
Yes, NGOs can file new appeals or seek contempt of court proceedings to contest the sanctioning decision.

What additional structures are being sanctioned?
Portelli and his associates have also applied to sanction two ODZ swimming pools associated with the penthouse development.

Who filed the new applications for sanctioning the illegal constructions?
The applications were filed through third-country employees Klevis Hoxhaj, Eledon Koci, and by Mark Agius.

Why is this case controversial?
The controversy stems from the Planning Authority overriding a clear Court of Appeal ruling, raising concerns about governance, legality, and environmental compliance.

What are the broader implications for Malta’s planning system?
The case may undermine public trust in legal and planning institutions, encourage retroactive approval of illegal developments, and challenge the balance between administrative discretion and judicial authority.