PA approves Delimara dwelling overlooking Il-Hofra l-Kbira

A controversial permit for a dwelling in pristine surroundings at Delimara has been approved by the Planning Commission despite previous objections from the environment watchdog.

The application filed by Anton Schembri concerned rural land overlooking the majestic Ħofra l-Kbira cliffs. The site is accessed from Triq Xrobb l-Għaġin. Schembri is a director of the Schembri Barbros construction company.

The commission approved the proposal by two votes to one after revised plans significantly reduced the scale of the development. The permit allows the demolition of what is described as a disused livestock farm and its replacement with a single one storey dwelling and basement.  

The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) had objected to the development since the site lies inside a designated Area of Ecological Importance (AEI) and Area of High Landscape Value. The site also lies in an area designated in the local plan as a national park.

These protections are intended to safeguard ecologically sensitive terrain, coastal landscapes and rural character from intrusive development.

In its formal consultation response, the ERA objected outright, warning that introducing a residence and associated domestic uses in such a sensitive location would urbanise an open rural landscape and risk setting a precedent for similar proposals in protected zones. The authority also warned of visual impacts and loss of undeveloped land.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage likewise raised concerns, noting the absence of any traceable permit for the existing structures and warning that the redevelopment would increase built volume and formalisation within a protected cultural landscape intended to preserve coastal cliffs and rural scenery.

Directorate recommended refusal

The Planning Authority’s Development Management Directorate had recommended refusal on several grounds. Its case officer concluded the proposal conflicted with rural policy because it had not been proven that the existing structure was a legally established building or a genuine disused livestock farm qualifying for conversion.

Officials noted no structures were visible on site in 1967, while from the submitted 1978 aerial photo, it was difficult to calculate the legally established roofed area. Moreover, no permit for the structures could be traced. Even if it once functioned as an agricultural building, they said evidence was insufficient to show it had ceased operation within the timeframe required by policy.

The directorate also objected to the development’s scale and impact, warning that earlier plans for a 225sq.m dwelling with basement, pool, decking, carport and ramp would have produced a significantly larger footprint than the existing structures and increased visual intrusion in the open landscape.

Illegal interventions already present on site, including an extended ramp and vehicular access created after 1978, were also cited as grounds for refusal.

Developer’s evidence on past farm use

Central to the applicant’s case was a technical report by an agricultural consultant, which assessed the site as a former cattle-rearing facility linked to a licensed livestock enterprise. The documentation was presented as evidence that it had functioned as a legitimate agricultural facility.

The report states the structures were built in the 1970s as an ancillary extension to a

dairy farm in Żejtun registered under a legally valid permit, allowing seasonal grazing on high-nutritional forage and serving as a biosecurity measure after the 1978 foot-and-mouth epidemic. The farm was at that time operated by a livestock owner Anthony Desira and was in use until 1992.

Supporting testimony was also provided by PJ Portelli, director of the Veterinary Regulation Directorate, who confirmed from his recollection as a former state veterinary surgeon that the land had been used as a dairy farm by the same farming family throughout the late 1980s and 1990s.

Approval followed major downscaling

The commission’s decision hinged largely on revised plans submitted late in the process. According to its justification, the proposed building was reduced to 99sq.m to reflect the scale of pre-1978 structures. Its height was also lowered so as not to exceed the adjacent roadside rubble wall. The pool was removed, apertures narrowed and the design altered to appear more vernacular in character.

Members said they took into account declarations from the Veterinary Regulation Directorate, affidavits referring to past agricultural use and the consultant’s historical assessment. They concluded that, with amendments and conditions, the development could be permitted.

The architect was instructed to submit further revised drawings showing the footprint of an underground reservoir, reduce façade openings and remove an illegal passageway.

While the development has been substantially downsized, the permit establishes a residential commitment, possibly opening the way for future extensions, apart from increasing its commercial value.