Request for revocation of Bidnija villa permit lodged “fuori termine”

In 2009, the same applicant requested the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to sanction a number of structural variations, which permit was eventually approved at appeal stage (before the Environment and Planning Tribunal) in 2013.

Following the issue of the second permit, a neighbour (who was a registered objector according to law) appealed the 2005 decision, insisting that the said permit was issued illegally and hence should be withdrawn in terms of Article 77 of Chapter 504 of the Laws of Malta.

Appeal was made in terms of Article 77 (Chap. 504), which expressly provides that requests for permit revocation must be made within five years

To support his arguments, the appellant alleged that the original permit was issued on the pretext that applicant is a full time farmer tilling more than 20 tumoli of land, when in fact this appears not to be the case.

Appellant further alleged that official receipts showing yearly vegetable production were issued on behalf of a third party, which go to suggest that applicant is not a genuine farmer as purported to be.

It was also pointed out that the permit was issued on the pretext that “the site chosen and the height of the building proposed are such as to ensure that the open country views that are enjoyed between two existing properties when accessed from the adjacent street located at a higher level (namely, the building of the objector) will be still enjoyed even if the proposed development is built” when allegedly, the country views can no longer be enjoyed by appellant.

On his part, applicant reacted by stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain objector’s request since a request for revocation was never brought forward (and discussed)  before the MEPA board. But even more so, applicant’s lawyer highlighted that the original permit was issued in 2005 and the request for revocation in terms of Article 77 was made in August 2013, namely more than five years later than required by law.

In addition, applicant noted that the said Article 77 cannot be invoked in relation to permits emanating from a decision of the Tribunal. On a separate note, applicant held without prejudice that Article 77 (of Chapter 504) applies for permits that were issued after 2010, while Article 39A (of Chapter 356 which preceded Chapter 504) which was in force when the 2005 permit was issued, reserved the right to appeal only to applicants and precluded third parties from submitting an appeal  when a permit is revoked.

 In its assessment, the Tribunal concluded that as the law stands, any third party has the right to submit a request for the revocation of a permit. Nevertheless, the Tribunal observed that the appeal under examination was made in terms of Article 77, which expressly provides that requests for permit revocation must be made within five years from the issuance of such permit.

In this case, the original permit was issued in 2005 while the neighbour submitted his appeal in 2013. Against this background, the Tribunal held that the appeal was lodged “fuori termine” and thus abstained from probing further into the merits surrounding the case.

Robert Musumeci is an architect who also pursued a degree in law

[email protected]