Revocation of development permit confirmed (Malta, Court of Appeal)

24 February 2011, Valletta (Ref: Appell Civ. nru 3/2010). The Court of Appeal confirmed the revocation of a permit to construct a block of flats, under article 39A of the Development Planning Act.

The Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) revoked the permit in question, in accordance with article 39A of the Development Planning Act, after it resulted and was actually proven that the mandatory notice which according to article 32(4) of the same Act, must be afficed on site when an application for planning permission is lodged, and retained on site, was in fact affixed to the wrong building site. The Authority deemed this to amount to an error on the face of the record, in terms of the same article 39A of the law.

 Art. 39A(1) states as follows:

39A. (1) The Authority may, only in the cases of fraud or where public safety is concerned or where there is an error on the face of the record, by order revoke or modify any development permission granted under this Act...

(2) For the purposes of subarticle (1) -

Art. 32(4) states as follows:

The developer appealed both to the Planning Appeals Board, and also to the Court of Appeal, from the decision to revoke the development permit. Amongst other things it was argued that he did not present any document which contained an error that broke the law; nor did there exist a document of relevance which fitted the definition of an error on the face of the record. The Planning Appeals Board however deemed that the failure to affix the notice on the correct site went contrary to law and could not be ignored. Ignoring this situation could give rise to abuse, apart from the prejudice caused to third parties who might not have known about the proposed development and lost their chance to object to it.

References to case law included that to Fish and Fish Limited v. MEPA (Appeal, 10.12.08), on which occasion the notice published in the newspaper (also in accordance with art. 32) indicated a proposal for development in another village than the actual. This also led to revocation of the permit under 39A of the Development Planning Act.

To read the judgement (in Maltese) click here