Gaffarena’s Żebbuġ ‘sheep farm’ set for refusal

The Planning Authority’s Development Management Directorate has recommended the refusal of an outline application seeking to sanction existing structures and convert them into a sheep farm on a rural site in Triq it-Tnax ta’ Mejju, Żebbuġ.   

The application, submitted by Josielle Gaffarena, proposes sanctioning existing ODZ buildings—some covered by an active enforcement notice—demolishing 146sq.m of illegal structures, constructing a cesspit, manure clamp, equipment area and feed storage, and changing the use of the site to a sheep farm.  A final decision is due on 17 December.

This latest application forms part of a prolonged effort by the Gaffarena family to obtain recognition for extensive illegal development.

Between 2005 and 2007, arable land on the site was transformed into a 370sq.m residence, a 50sq.m swimming pool, landscaped areas and multiple animal enclosure—including exotic species such as llamas and zebras.

An attempt by Mark Gaffarena to regularise the residence was refused in 2020 and rejected on appeal in 2022. The only permit ever approved was an outline permit for stables in 2008, which has long expired.   

According to the case officer’s report, the proposal could not be properly assessed due to substantial missing information. The PA said essential drawings, structural details, boundary-wall measurements, soil data and waste-management specifications were never submitted. Repeated requests made to the architect last July went unanswered.

The report also notes that the extensive unpermitted works covered by a 2008 enforcement notice cannot be sanctioned through an outline permit which is meant to set the parameters for a future full development application.

The Authority concluded that the application runs counter to the South Malta Local Plan and the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development, which restrict land take-up in rural areas to genuine agricultural needs. The proposal, involving the regularisation of large ODZ structures and the introduction of additional facilities, was deemed incompatible with these policy objectives.

The proposal was opposed by both the Environment and Resources Authority and the Agriculture Advisory Committee. The ERA warned that the site had already suffered “adverse environmental impacts” from unpermitted structures, animal enclosures, hard paving and a swimming pool, contributing to urban sprawl and the loss of rural character.

The AAC flagged excessive storage spaces, substandard animal pens, insufficient ventilation, incomplete waste-management information, and the absence of proof of the applicant’s competence to run a livestock operation.