In a unanimous vote, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority board yesterday revoked the outline and full development permit for the redevelopment of Ulysses Lodge, under Article 39A, due to a road, classified as government land, that cuts through the property.

In an intense two-hour public hearing, the applicant’s legal representatives presented a number of points before the Mepa board explaining why, they said, the development permits should not be revoked.

The outline development permit 5138/02 and full development application 7902/05, requested the demolition of the existing tourist and entertainment complex, known as Ulysses Lodge, and the construction of 23 self-catering villa-style residential units with underground parking spaces, sub-stations and pools.

The site in question covers an area of around 40,000 square metres, and is on a clay slope below the Xaghra plateau, overlooking Ramla Bay.

When Mepa approved the full development application on 6 June, it included a particular condition in the permit – condition 11 – binding the applicant to enter into a public deed with the authority.

Mepa introduced this condition to ensure that the tourist complex will not be eventually transformed into a residential area or transfer any part of the complex.

However, if the land covered by the permit is not fully owned by the applicant, then condition 11 is not fulfilled and the permit is no longer valid.

Mepa’s legal consultant Ian Stafrace explained the authority’s legal office had six months to investigate and draw up the deed before they presented a draft copy to the board.

He said that he received an objection that the site does not fully belong to the applicant.

Architect Lino Bianco on behalf of Xaghra local councillor Carmen Bajada had filed an official request in July, after he drew up a detailed report, to withdraw of the outline development permit for the development of villas instead of Ulysses Lodge at Ramla Bay in Gozo.

Mr Bianco, an environment planning consultant, officially requested Mepa to annul the outline development permit issued at Ramla, rendering full development planning permit as null and void, invoking Article 39A.

Article 39A of the Development Planning Act states that “the authority may, where there are cases of fraud, error on the face of the record or an issue of public safety, withdraw or modify a permit which has been approved.”

Dr Stafrace said that his office went through the maps of the area at the Lands Department and the Land registry and found that the government had registered certain parts of the property as public land – a road that cuts through the site in question from east to west.

“Article 39A does not go into the merit of whether the misinformation was intentional or not,” said Dr Stafrace.

He went on to explain that although the outline development permit did not include condition 11, the two permits are intrinsically bound together.

“The outline permit has to be seen in the context of the full development permit and these are intrinsically tied together,” said Dr Stafrace.

The applicant’s legal advisor, Carmelo Galea, argued that “it is a cardinal mistake to combine the two applications.

“Even though these applications are intrinsically bound, if the full development application is withdrawn the

outline application is still valid,” he said.

Dr Galea went on to say that when the outline application was issued, the government had not yet registered the road in question.

“My client had no knowledge that the government owned land in the site at the time,” he said.

Dr Galea requested the Mepa board to give the client a chance to follow it up with lands department.

“We are not going to beg or try to buy the land off the government – but we will try to convince him that the land is ours. If this does not work then we will take the issue up in court,” he said.

Along with legal advisor Edward Debono, Dr Galea tried to convince the Mepa board that even if the government does not give up its ownership, the applicant will still be able to fulfil condition 11.

“We will not be able to build on it and we will not be able to sell the road – if it does not belong to us – all we need to do is rearrange the plans slightly so that the rooms of two or three villas will not encroach on the road,” said Dr Galea.

However Dr Stafrace pointed out that condition 11 can only be fulfilled if the entire property belongs to the applicant.

Dr Debono then said that Section 39A allows amendments to take place, to which Dr Stafrace replied condition 11, which is an intrinsic part of the development permit, will not be fulfilled and, as a result, the development cannot take place.

Mepa board member Joe Brincat said that the authority will make a fundamental mistake it if it makes an exception because the applicant clearly chose to state that he was the sole owner of the property.

“He could have chosen application B that states that he is not the sole owner of the property but he took the decision to choose application A,” said Dr Brincat.

Mepa has to be fully informed of what is going on and if the government states that the road is public property then there is nothing to say, he added.

“No one can take public property and make it his own,” he said.