A controversial application regarding the extension of a basement beneath a winery which became the first PA case where the Attorney General had filed an appeal has again been approved by the Planning Authority.
An application was filed by former University of Malta rector Juanito Camilleri. The application proposed extending the basement of a two-storey winery. The two-storey winery was previously approved in 2012.
The proposed extension of the basement level would see it increase from the approved 253 sq.m. to 860 sq.m.. It also proposes shifting further down the approved water reservoir, below the proposed cellar. It also proposes the construction of an underground pesticides store of 10 sq.m and the shifting of a rubble wall.
The site proposed for development forms part of Ta’ Betta Estates, which consists of approximately 40,000m² of land planted with vitis vinifera vines. The land is located in Siggiewi within the area known as Ta’ Bur il-Kbir. The North West Local Plan (NWLP) identifies the site for agricultural use. The site is characterized by large areas of regularly tilled pristine agricultural land. The south-south-west part of applicants land is scheduled as an area of Archaeological sensitivity since records indicate the presence of a Punic tomb.
The case officer had recommended that the application be refused arguing that the extension of the basement goes beyond the building footprint, and also beyond the approved paved area (at ground floor level) in addition to others.
The permit however, was originally approved by the Planning Authority Board, thus overturning the case officer’s recommendation.
The Attorney General had objected to the application. This was the only PA case the AG has appealed thus far. There have been major applications where large numbers of the population felt that a decision by the PA was not according to policy, however no action by the AG was taken.
There apparently was a procedural error in the original decision. The winery extension was approved in a single sitting by two votes against one despite the negative recommendation of the case officer. However, recent changes require a second vote when a board indicates their intention to go against the case officer’s recommendation. The PA did not revoke the permit when the case went before them. The Attorney General eventually took the case to court.
The Court of Appeal decision dated 30th January 2019 ordered that the application is resent back to the Planning Commission for a second hearing (following the first one held on 16th August 2016). During the Planning Commission meeting of the 16th August 2016, the majority of the members present expressed their intention to go against the recommendation of the Planning Directorate (2 members against 1).
The applicant’s architect said that the Planning authority on more than one occasion did not attack that the permission was according to policy, but attacked the procedure, highlighting that this whole situation was over the use of a single minute in the records. He said that the decision was taken when the new rules regarding overturning case officer’s recommendations were implemented.
During Thursday’s board sitting, a question arose as to whether the full basement will be underground or not, where it was seen that a frontage was not, however the architect said this issue was never brought up in past sittings.
The PA Board today confirmed the previous approvals for this application.