Not Implemented: Investigation into the number of stables approved by the Planning Authority

Not Implemented: Investigation into the number of stables approved by the Planning Authority

Published January 28, 2025

The complaint

The Commissioner for Environment and Planning investigated the number of stables approved by the Planning Authority (PA) since its inception in 2016 after 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

The Commissioner 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.  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).

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.

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.

This is a list (as at August 2024) of the number of stables approved by locality each year, together with the number of applications (per stable) that are pending in front of the PA and the EPRT.

Although the RPDG does not require the applicant to be a registered owner of equines, the PA has established a procedure whereby the applicant submits a list of equines that are registered in the applicant’s name, with the number of equines generally corresponding to the number of stables being proposed.  This procedure is in line with the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED), particularly Thematic Objective 1 that limits the take up of land within the rural area, Thematic Objective 1.10 that requires rural areas not to be exploited by uses which are not legitimate or necessary and Rural Objective 3 that guides development which is justified to be located in the rural area.

Initially the PA did not request the applicant to be a registered equine holder, and in actual fact there are about 60 permits that were issued in the early years without any reference to a list of equines and without any conditions related to the same list.  In this respect, eventually the PA introduced the list of registered equines as a supporting document in each relevant permit and also introduced conditions in each permit that refer to the same list.  These conditions are:

1. Proof from the VRD that equines listed or their replacement are still registered with VRD on site.  If in the interim any of the registered equines are no longer registered on the site approved in this development permission, their replacement is to be communicated to the PA within one calendar year.  If no such information is submitted, the approved stables or part thereof is to be dismantled and the land made good at the applicant’s expense.
   
   
2. Proof from the VRD that equines listed are still registered with VRD on the name of applicant.
   
   
3. Certification from a qualified veterinary surgeon reporting that the equines registered with VRD are still present on site.

These conditions were never challenged nor contested and have generally been accepted, so much so that some applicants even submit the list of equines at the initial stages of the application.

These conditions show that each stable permit is temporary in nature since the stables are only allowed to be retained subject to conditions relating to the life and ownership of the relative equine.  However, these conditions were generally never followed neither by the applicants nor by the PA and no certification in line with these conditions has ever been submitted or eventually requested.  Furthermore, once a permit expires one cannot even enforce such a condition that has thus also expired.  Therefore, in line with the first condition, the relative development is no longer permitted since the same condition states that failure to provide the certification, the approved stables should be dismantled.  Only in a handful of applications a declaration stating that the equines are in good health has been submitted by the applicant and in only one case did the PA ask the applicant to change this declaration in line with the conditions.

Although another condition states that following the issuing of the Final Compliance Certificate (also certifying compliance with the conditions imposed), the applicant shall annually submit certification confirming that the equines are still registered with VRD on site and that failure to submit this information the approved stables have to be dismantled, the relative Compliance Certificate is nowhere to be found in each PA file.  Hence, the Compliance Certificate must be uploaded by the PA in the relative file in order to be able to verify compliance with the permit conditions.

In order to confirm dismantling in line with conditions, one cannot solely rely on enforcement and similar permits that are temporary in nature and one should either introduce a bank guarantee to ascertain removal or else, similar permits should be issued for a temporary period of time, requiring renewal on each expiration.  The latter is a more practical option when considering the regular certification required from the VRD.  A validity period of three years should be adequate considering the nature of the development and development application submission requirements.  The minor amendment procedure can then be utilised to change the list of registered equines - that should be included as an approved document rather than as a supporting document - during the validity period of the permit.

On another note, the Commissioner also noted certain inconsistencies in the relative equine list declarations:

1. Permits did not include a common method of certification and some included certificates issued by private veterinary surgeons, some by the Marsa Racing Club, some by the VRD and others issued by foreign agencies or private architects.  In some cases, the PA also accepted only photos of the equines.
   
   
2. The declarations included distinct information such as the name, the microchip number and transponder code, the unique life number and freezemark or the passport number.
   
   
3. Two or more declarations on the same equine may refer to different applicants due to the same equine being co-owned.

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.  Whether this equine list checking should be done by the Agricultural Advisory Committee or the PA is irrelevant since the PA is bound to verify all the information it receives in line with SPED as otherwise what’s the use of asking for the equine list in the first place.

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.  This coverage of 25 square metres per stable (irrespective of the number of stables being approved) should be modified.  Firstly, 20 square metres for a similar ODZ development should cover the necessities of equines considering that the actual stall only requires half this area and considering also that the RPDG only allows a 15 square metre store for agricultural implements serving 10 Tumoli of agricultural land.  This 20 square metres limit should only apply for the first three stables (figure based on the average number of stables in each development application as mentioned earlier).  For additional stables, this area should be further reduced to 15 square metres per stable.  This will lead to a reduction of the total site coverage allocated for stables in ODZ by about 20-25%.  As an example, the resultant 135 square metres (3x20+5x15=135) total coverage for 8 stables in ODZ makes more sense than the extensive area of 200 square metres allowed under the current policy.

Conclusions and Recommendations

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.

Various amendments to the permitting procedures and policy are being recommended:

1. 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 VRD (number of stables in the application should always be equal or less than the number of equines in the list).
   
   
2. This VRD registration list should be included as an approved document (not as a supporting document) in the relative permit.
   
   
3. Permits should be issued for a definite period of three years on condition that the structures should be dismantled unless permit is renewed.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. The RPDG should be modified so that:
   a. these recommendations are confirmed and endorsed; and
   b. an area of 20 square metres per stable for the first three stables and an area of 15 square metres per each additional stable applies on all new applications.
   
   
6. The PA should ascertain that all permit conditions are complied with and when a condition imposes the submission of certain information within a specified period, the PA system should bring up the relative PA file for examination accordingly.
   
   
7. The Final Compliance Certificate should be uploaded in the relative PA file.

Outcome

After the PA was given an additional extension of one month to reply, the Final Opinion was referred to the Prime Minister in early December 2024.

Following this, the PA replied that it does not have any issues with recommendations 6 and 7 and it will implement them within the least possible time.  The PA raised certain issues in relation to the other points, namely that for certain recommendations to be applied, there needs to be a change in the RPDG or support/collaboration with the VRD.  The PA added that abstracts from certain points and points 3 and 5 will be put forward for consideration in the review of the RPDG and if taken onboard will be adopted in the revision of the policy.  Following the Final Opinion, the PA and the Ministry for Agriculture have engaged in discussions involving cooperation in the management, control and collating data and sharing for better control measures from the VRD side and in conditions of permits issued.  The PA concluded that it is committed to introduce a more meticulous regime in the issuing and monitoring of these permits.

The Commissioner welcomed the acceptance of recommendations 6 and 7 and in this regard the PA was asked to provide information within a month about which permits have followed the relative condition so that this information may be taken into consideration if this case is then referred to the House of Representatives.  Regarding the other recommendations, the Commissioner conveyed that it is not acceptable that the first four rather simple recommendations are not implemented with immediate effect and that in relation to the fifth recommendation, although it is acknowledged that this would require changes in the RPDG, the PA is bound to move the relative changes as soon as possible as the statistics found are not sustainable.

Following no reply from the PA to the latter 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.