The Commissioner for Environment and Planning Alan Saliba has investigated the number of stables approved by the Planning Authority (PA) since its inception in 2016 after he said, various articles appeared in the media alleging multiple stables for the same horse or even for horses that are deceased, including allegations about unofficial equine ownership transfers.
The investigation revealed that the PA “does not check whether the equine was already registered under a previous permit, so much so that 36 stables were permitted for equines that already had a permit on their name. In two instances, three permits were issued for the same equine and other permits referred to equine details that are illegible.”
The Commissioner said that he perused all applications and permits issued until the end of August 2024 (the Final Opinion was issued on 23 September 2024) and found that in the eight years between 2016 and 2024, the PA approved a total of 1022 stables in 298 separate permits (average 3.4 stables per permit). “39 of these permits sanctioned 137 stables that were already constructed,” he said.
There are a further 88 applications for 328 stables (including 16 applications to sanction 61 stables) awaiting a decision by the Planning Authority and 10 applications for 50 stables (including 1 application to sanction 5 stables) awaiting a decision by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT).
The investigation found that almost all of these permits approved the construction of new stables in the Outside Development Zone (ODZ). No permits for the change of use from stables to dwellings were traced, the Commissioner said.
He highlighted that “with about 5200 equines registered with the Veterinary Regulation Directorate (VRD) since 2016, one would expect to receive such a high number of requests for the development of stables in the ODZ, particularly when the Rural Policy Design Guidance 2014 (RPDG) establishes that new stables should be located away from the development zone.”
The number of stables approved since 2016 comprise the construction of structures with a total area of around 25,000 square metres for stables alone in ODZ since the RPDG allows a total area of 25 square metres per stable.
In his concluding remarks, Saliba noted that “the number of stables in ODZ that have been approved by the PA since 2016 is found to be excessive, against the spirit of SPED and definitely unsustainable. Furthermore, the PA failed to control compliance with the conditions the PA itself imposed in the same permits.”
Among other recommendations, Saliba said that “the PA should ascertain that no application for stables is validated unless it includes the number of stables being proposed and a list of equines (name and standard number such as microchip number) registered under the applicant issued by the Veterinary Regulation Directorate (number of stables in the application should always be equal or less than the number of equines in the list).
This VRD registration list should be included as an approved document (not as a supporting document) in the relative permit.
The PA should keep a list of the details of all equines in order to ascertain that only one permit is issued for each equine. This list should be updated following the approval of minor amendments to the equine registration list.
He also said that permits should be issued for a definite period of three years on condition that the structures should be dismantled unless permit is renewed.”
The PA was given an additional extension of one month to reply, with the Final Opinion referred to the Prime Minister in early December.
The Commissioner said that following this, the PA replied that it did not have issues with some of the recommendations and would implement them “within the least possible time.” However, it did raise issues on others, which the Commissioner said “is not acceptable that four rather simple recommendations,” as shown above, “are not implemented with immediate effect.”
“With no response from the PA to the request indicating no changes for effective enforcement of the relative permits conditions and following the publication of further permits not respecting findings and recommendations in the Final Opinion, the case was referred to the House of Representatives in line with the Ombudsman Act,” the Commissioner said.
Photo: Office of the Ombudsman