MEPA ignores agricultural watchdog as villa rises out of ashes of phantom farm

A controversial permit for a villa set on agricultural land, issued on the pretext that a neighbouring garage once served as a livestock farm, was not vetted by the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), an internal MEPA committee that verifies genuine cases involving agricultural structures.

MEPA confirmed that the permit was issued on the basis of evidence provided by the Department of Agriculture.

The controversial permit for the construction of the villa, instead of a garage whose legality was questioned in a case officer’s report, was issued to Roderick Farrugia, son-in-law of former Labour MP Bertu Pace, today a consultant to the parliamentary secretary responsible for agriculture, Roderick Galdes.

It was brought to public attention in a report published by the Times of Malta last month. 

The AAC, which includes two independent members apart from MEPA and Agriculture Department officials, was specifically appointed by law to assess cases involving the change of use of agricultural structures and to assess the “genuine need” for any such development on agricultural land.  

Created in 2014, the AAC is tasked with determining whether “there is scope for a change of use from an agricultural activity to a non-agricultural activity.”

The committee must also be consulted on applications for redevelopment and change of use into a new use.

But MEPA claims its rural development policy does not bind it to consult AAC in similar cases. “The permit was assessed under clause 6.2C of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance, 2014. In this policy consultations with the AAC are not indicated and therefore not required”.  

This particular clause of the policy does not refer to the need of consultation to the committee, even if the AAC’s terms of reference indicate the change of use of agricultural buildings as one of the committee’s functions.

How garage was turned into villa

MEPA’s rural policy allows it to approve residential development instead of disused farm buildings “which are creating a negative environmental impact on the site and its surroundings”.  

MEPA claimed that the site’s former use as a farm was substantiated by a letter from the Agriculture Department – which falls under the same ministry where Bertu Pace works – confirming the farm was in operation before 2000. 

The justification for building a residence outside development zones is based on the alleged livestock operations that had been practised there and which ceased over 10 years ago.

One of the documents cited as proof that the garage had been used as a poultry farm consisted of a document issued by the Veterinary Regulation Directorate, stating that the shed is not economically viable to be used to keep chickens. The directorate claimed the farm today would not be in keeping with the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. “Therefore, besides the building being derelict it cannot operate again as a farm. This statement concurs with the affidavit submitted by the previous owners who stated that the farm had stopped operations,” a MEPA spokesperson told MaltaToday. 

MEPA claims this was proof that the permitted garage had changed its use into a farm and then left derelict for more than 10 years.

But a case officer who evaluated the change-of-use application, said the document was not sufficient evidence of an operational farm “let alone that it had been disused for 10 years”, adding that the directorate’s contention only confirmed that the garage was built in a way that made in unviable for use as a farm – hence why the “structure was never used” as a farm.

MEPA also said the 232 square-metre garage was granted permits in 1986, at a time when no permit was required for such a change of use. MEPA says this was substantiated by an official letter from the Agriculture Department which confirmed that the farm was in operation before 2000.

But the same case officer contested the 1986 permit for a private garage – in actual fact only 25 square metres – was actually in “a different location” from the existing building.  Additionally, a subsequent application to renew this permit was refused.

The case officer concluded that since the structure was not visible in aerial photos taken in 1978, and no permit could be traced for it on the same location, “there is no evidence that the structure is legally established.”

Indeed, the policy allowing new dwellings instead of disused farm buildings only applies to permitted legal buildings, or those appearing in 1978 photos. Additionally, the replacement building cannot “exceed the total floor area of the previous buildings”, so the new villa would have to take up fresh land with a floor space of 200 square metres above ground, and an 80 square-metre basement. More importantly, the villa had to constitute an environmental improvement, but the case officer said the new building “did not constitute a high quality rural design.”

AAC systematically ignored

A probe by MaltaToday also reveals that other similar cases related to the conversion of agricultural structures into dwellings for farmers have been referred to the AAC in the past months.  

While these applications involved applications presented by farmers who intend to continue farming operations on the same site, the role of the AAC in this case was even more pertinent as this involved seeking agricultural justification for changing a garage into a dwelling.

Over the past months the Environment and Planning Commission chaired by architect Elizabeth Ellul has been overturning AAC recommendations, even in cases where the committee had made it clear that there was no genuine agricultural need for the proposed development. 

One such case involved the approval of an agricultural store beneath Fort Bingemma, which was controversially approved in September. 

MEPA also overruled the advice of the AAC to approve the regularisation of an illegally built 90-square metre store below the fortified city of Mdina, which is highly visible from Il-Pjazza tas-Sur.

The AAC includes MEPA officials Sylvio Farrugia and Charmaine Muscat, Malcolm Borg from the Agriculture Directorate, Charles Spiteri from the Veterinary Regulation Department and independent members Joe Gerada and Sammy Vella, the latter being an agricultural expert and former independent mayor of Mellieha.

MEPA issues permit for illegal stores

On Wednesday MEPA continued defying the AAC by issuing a permit to regularise illegal stores at Hofret ir-Rizz in Rabat.

The development consists of two illegal structures and an enclosed yard set on 100 square metres of land, which were constructed without a permit before 1994 and are located outside development zones adjacent to a disused quarry in Rabat. Enforcement against the development, which is described as not being of a non-agricultural nature, was issued in 2013.

The case officer states emphatically that the approval of this permit would be in breach of the policy allowing MEPA to regularise pre-1994 development, which includes a clause stating that such a development can only be legally sanctioned “if this is justified by a genuine agricultural need”.  The AAC insisted that there was no such need.

The report also points out that the owner, Kristinu Gauci, had only registered himself as a farmer tilling two tumoli of land in November 2015. Architect and Labour MP Charles Buhagiar, who doubles up as chairman of the government appointed Building Industry Consultative Council, represented Gauci. Buhagiar was also the architect representing Roderick Farrugia in the controversial application in Siggiewi.

Key takeways

•    MEPA can approve residences instead of disused farms only if create ‘negative environmental impact’

•    Applicant claimed garage had been used as a farm, but this was only substantiated by a letter from the Agriculture Department – which falls under the same ministry where applicant’s father-in-law, former Labour MP Bertu Pace works – confirming the farm was in operation before 2000. 

•    Veterinary Regulation Directorate claimed poultry shed had not been economically viable to be used to keep chickens, which is why it was left derelict for 10 years.

•    But case officer claimed that 25sq.m garage made such a famr a non-starter, and that 1986 permit for garage was actually on a different location existing building.

•    Additionally, the replacement building cannot “exceed the total floor area of the previous buildings”, so the new villa would have to take up fresh land with a floor space of 200 sq.m.

•    Permit for villa was not vetted by internal Agricultural Advisory Committee, as MEPA keeps ignoring watchdog