Appeal filed against Żabbar ODZ elderly home refusal

Architect and lawyer Robert Musumeci has filed an appeal on behalf of a developer against the Planning Authority's refusal of a controversial elderly home proposed on ODZ land in Żabbar, arguing that the authority reached its decision before crucial technical and environmental studies had been completed.

The appeal was filed on behalf of developer Clinton Spiteri, whose application for a large elderly care facility overlooking Wied ta' Mazza was unanimously rejected by the Planning Board on 14 May, just two weeks before the general election. 

At the time, the proposal had become one of the most controversial planning applications under consideration, attracting objections from environmental NGOs, the Żabbar local council and residents concerned about the urbanisation of protected countryside.

The proposed development consisted of a four-storey elderly home with three basement levels on more than 4,000sq.m of agricultural land at the edge of Żabbar. The project included 92 rooms capable of accommodating more than 200 residents, a dementia day centre, pharmacy, swimming pool, gym, mortuary and 153 underground parking spaces.

In refusing the application, the Planning Authority concluded that the development would have an unacceptable impact on a sensitive rural landscape. The site lies within an Agricultural Area, a Valley Protection Zone and an Area of Ecological and Scientific Importance, while also being close to a Natura 2000 protected site.

Planning officials argued that the proposal would formalise urban development on protected ODZ land, result in the loss of agricultural land and negatively affect the valley landscape. They concluded that the site could not be considered acceptable from a planning perspective.

But Musumeci's appeal contends that the refusal was procedurally flawed because the authority itself had requested a series of studies that were never allowed to reach completion.

According to the appeal, the application was submitted as an outline development application intended solely to determine whether the site could, in principle, be considered suitable for an elderly home. It was not intended to authorise immediate construction.

The appeal notes that in September 2025 the Planning Authority issued a screening letter requiring the submission of a site-selection exercise, engineering reports, traffic studies, a Project Description Statement and other technical assessments.

Musumeci argues that once these studies were requested, the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the process would be allowed to continue until the requested information was completed and assessed.

Particular emphasis is placed on the intervention of architect Charles Buhagiar, who represented the application before the Planning Board. Buhagiar had requested a suspension of proceedings, arguing that the application had been scheduled for hearing prematurely because key studies were still underway.

The appeal also notes what it describes as contradictions in the authority's assessment. A site-selection exercise submitted by the applicant identified an alternative site in Marsaskala as the highest-scoring option, but also concluded that a feasibility study was needed to determine whether that site was genuinely preferable to the Żabbar location. According to the appeal, that feasibility study was never requested before the application was refused.

A similar argument is made regarding environmental assessment. The appeal notes that the Environment and Resources Authority had indicated that an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required following the submission of a Project Description Statement. However, the EIA was never commissioned because the proposal was deemed unacceptable in principle.

The appeal also points out that transport authorities had requested additional information on vehicular access, suggesting that traffic impacts were still being assessed when the Planning Board took its decision.

Musumeci argued that the authority effectively determined the proposal was unacceptable regardless of studies that were still pending. Musumeci, a former PN mayor, has in the past served as a consultant to the Labour government and actively defended the botched planning reform presented by the government a year ago.

The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal will now decide whether the application was rightly refused or whether the assessment process should have been allowed to run its course before a final decision was taken.