A man has written to the Permanent Commission Against Corruption and other national institutions asking them to investigate the redevelopment of rural property by Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg, claiming that abuse of power led to the issuing of a development permit which should never have been issued.

Noel Ciantar, a Rabat farmer who is also qualified as an accountant, carried out his own journalistic investigation into the case after reports on the proposed development in the limits of Rabat surfaced on the media, alleging that planning policies were breached to allow the redevelopment of the site.

Based on these reports and on other publicly-available documents he looked into, Mr Ciantar argues that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s decision to issue a development permit to Dr Borg was the result of “abuse of entrusted power for private gain,” and referred the case to the PCAC, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner for Environment and Planning in the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the Speaker of the House of the Representatives.

He argues that the investigation should not be limited to Dr Borg, and that it should also look into anyone connected to the assessment and approval of the development application.

 

First attempt to develop property had failed

The case concerns a property in Santa Katerina, one of the numerous rural hamlets in the outskirts of Rabat, centred around a centuries-old chapel dedicated to St Catherine of Alexandria on the boundary between Rabat and Dingli.

The property itself lies just behind the chapel, on the edge of a ridge. Its name is ‘The View’, somewhat appropriately, since it enjoys stunning views of the underlying Dingli countryside.

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s online map server shows that there have been two attempts to demolish the existing structure and build a new, more extensive property.

The first was filed in April 2012 by a certain Kenneth Bugeja, for the “demolition of existing abandoned house, excavation, construction of a new terraced house.”

But the case officer assigned recommended the refusal of the project, in line with the objections of the natural panel of the Heritage Advisory Committee.

“The proposed height and design of the new terraced house are not in keeping with the characteristics of the Category 3 settlement and would create a negative visual impact. The adjacent third party development was approved at appeals stage and had the panel been consulted, it would have recommended a refusal. The application therefore cannot be recommended,” the committee said.

The decision was appealed, but the appeal was withdrawn in April 2014.

The MEPA website, of course, does not give a reason for this withdrawal, but the property was sold off by its 17 owners – an elderly widow, her 14 surviving children and the two children of another daughter who has since died – to Dr Borg on 16 May.

A second application to redevelop the property soon followed: it was filed on 12 June, 2014.

Application not in Dr Borg’s name

Curiously, the new application – to “demolish existing substandard structures with no rural value and construct two residential dwellings” – was filed by a certain Renald Azzopardi, thus concealing the parliamentary secretary’s involvement at this stage.

Mr Azzopardi is listed as the site manager in the billboard displayed on site in line with environmental management construction site regulations, while Dr Borg is listed as the owner.

While the application was different to the 2012 one, the HAC’s natural panel once more opposed the plans, lamenting the progressive ruin of Santa Katerina’s rural character.

“This small rural hamlet is gradually being redeveloped into a modern ‘apartment style’ settlement, changing completely the rural character of the area and the surrounding landscape. With regards to the current application, notwithstanding the attempt made by the architect in trying to retain the rural appearance through the proposed treatment of the elevations, the panel considers that the proposed development is excessive both in density and especially in mass. This would have a negative impact on the rural character of the area,” the panel said before recommending refusal.

But the case officer assigned – coincidentally, the same one assigned to the previous application – recommended approval, and MEPA’s Environment and Planning Commission ultimately chose to follow her recommendation.

The structure, which consisted of domestic stores at ground floor level, a dwelling at first floor level and disused rooms at first and second floor levels, has since been demolished.

Breaches of planning policy seemingly ignored

Santa Katerina falls within the North West Local Plan, and is classified as a small rural settlement. Only the rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing buildings should be permitted, and the take-up of fresh land – “notwithstanding the location of the site in relation to existing buildings” – should not be permitted, in contrast to hamlets classified as large rural settlements.

But while the original structure had a footprint of just 95 square metres, the new proposed building would have a footprint of approximately 150 square metres, according to the case officer’s report.

Existing planning policies governing Outside Development Zone areas also state that while ODZ dwellings can be extended, they could only be extended to a maximum floor space of 200 square metres. The planned structure, comprising a basement and two dwellings, should have a total floor space of 489 square metres.

In the case of the first application, the case officer had highlighted that the proposal was in conflict with planning policies due to the planned take-up of fresh land. But this appears not to have been a problem on the second try.

PS Borg replies

Parliamentary Secretary Ian Borg today said he appreciated the fact that the institutions of a democratic country are in place to serve as tools of scrutiny.

He said that he will leave the matter in the hands of those who ‘have the power to investigate with absolute freedom’, given that a request was made for investigation by a private citizen.

He denied the allegations made against him, in that there was any abuse of power in the process of issuing a development permit. He also pointed out that he has the right to take out loans, purchase, apply and build a private residence, just as any other citizen has.