PA recommends sanctioning Sannat swimming pool despite court's permit revocation

The Planning Authority's case officer has recommended the sanctioning of an ODZ 180 sq.m swimming pool and decking area in Sannat whose permit was revoked in a landmark Court of Appeal judgment in 2024.

The recommendation concerns application PA/00268/25 and follows a separate Planning Authority decision earlier this year to redesignate part of a pedestrian footpath separating the pool from the apartment block it serves as "private open space", a move that effectively removed the legal obstacle identified by the court.

The application, submitted by developer Mark Agius, seeks to sanction the pool as built in connection with a 22-apartment development approved in 2021.

In a landmark ruling delivered in March 2024 in a case brought by Din l-Art Ħelwa, Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti had revoked the permit for the pool, finding that it was not located within the curtilage of the residential development because it was separated from it by a public footpath. The court had also annulled a permit for penthouses added to the same development.

The swimming pool was deemed illegal by the courts in 2024, which Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti revoking its permit

But in April this year, the Planning Authority's Executive Council approved a planning control application redesignating the disputed section of the footpath as private open space while retaining existing servitude rights. The decision was widely seen as paving the way for a fresh application to regularise the pool.

In the latest recommendation, the case officer concludes that the pool now satisfies Policy 6.4 of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance, which allows pools in ODZ areas when they are located within the curtilage of a legally established accommodation.

The report notes that the pool is ancillary to the apartment block approved under permit PA5048/20 and is linked to the development through a designated private open space. It argues that the site is enclosed by a physical boundary wall and should therefore be considered part of the curtilage of the residential development.

The report also concludes that the pool and surrounding deck, which cover 180 square metres, comply with policy limits because the development comprises 22 dwellings. Under policy rules, developments with multiple units are entitled to an additional 5 square metres of pool area per dwelling on top of the standard 75 square metre allowance.

The recommendation comes despite objections from residents and environmental groups, including Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.

Objectors argued that the Court of Appeal had already declared the pool illegal and that the redesignation of the footpath undermined the spirit of that ruling. They insisted that the pool remains physically separated from the residential development and therefore fails the policy requirement that pools be located within the curtilage of the accommodation they serve.

Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar also objected on the grounds that the site lies partly within ODZ land, close to Natura 2000 sites and near scheduled cart ruts. The NGO argued that sanctioning the pool would constitute an unacceptable urban intrusion into a sensitive rural landscape and would run counter to strategic planning objectives aimed at limiting land take-up in the countryside.

The Environment and Resources Authority also maintained its opposition, stating that the pool and deck area were not acceptable from an environmental perspective because they introduced urban-type uses in an ODZ area and resulted in the uptake of undeveloped land.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage recalled concerns it had raised in previous applications regarding the cumulative impact of development on the area's rural landscape and scenic views towards the cliffs. However, it noted that the decision on whether to sanction the works falls within the Planning Authority's remit.

The application will now be decided by the Planning Board on 30 June 2026. If approved, the sanctioning permit would regularise a development that became one of Malta's most closely watched planning cases after the Court of Appeal overturned the original permit and found that the pool was not legally linked to the apartment block it served.