PA refuses DLH’s bid to revoke Portelli penthouse permit

The Planning Board unanimously rejected—by 10 votes to 0—a bid by Din l-Art Ħelwa to revoke a permit for two penthouses in Sannat. The penthouses were originally approved by the Planning Authority and later revoked by the Court of Appeal.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal decreed that the penthouses should have been recessed on both sides of the road, in line with policy protecting ridges.

Subsequently, the authority approved a “minor amendment” based on the court’s decision to recess the penthouses. However, at the same time, another application was presented by the developer to sanction the two penthouses as built.

That permit—which contradicted the court decision—was later approved by the Planning Authority through a fast-tracked “summary procedure”. The latter application was presented by Tarlochan Singh, an employee of Portelli’s company.

Din l-Art Ħelwa, through its lawyer Claire Bonello, asked the Planning Authority to revoke the second permit, arguing that it had been approved on the basis of misleading information—a claim rejected by both the developer and the Planning Directorate.

Much of the discussion revolved around whether a pedestrian walkway abutting the block containing the penthouses is considered a road.

“We insist that the pedestrian walkway abuts the site. This information was omitted from the application sanctioning the penthouses,” Bonello said, accusing the authority of trying to circumvent the court’s decision.

Bonello argued that there are different and conflicting permits on the site: the minor amendment to the original permit, which further recessed the penthouses as per the court's ruling, and the planning permit issued through the summary procedure in 2024.

She also contended that the case officer’s report for this application did not list the applicable policies for the site, including the one protecting ridges.

Project architect Saviour Micallef insisted that the block now has a site address fronting only Triq l-Imramma.

Former PA CEO Ian Stafrace, speaking as a consultant for Portelli, also spoke in favour of the developer’s stance, insisting that the permit cannot be revoked because the pedestrian passage has no name and could not have been cited in the application.

He also noted that two adjacent buildings were built in a similar way and nobody had objected.

Board member Andrew Ellul opposed the revocation, insisting that the pedestrian road has no name and noting that two identical penthouses exist on an adjacent site.

NGO representative Romano Cassar could not vote as he was indisposed for health reasons.