Diacono et al vs Planning Authority — Cow Farm Near High-Voltage Cables

Residents challenge renewal of a cow farm permit near 11kV overhead cables, arguing Enemalta's no-objection was based on false declarations.

Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) · Honourable Judge Mark Simiana, LL.D · 4 May 2026

A group of residents — Peter and Veronica Diacono, John and Geraldine Portelli, Kristoff and Emma Zammit Ciantar, and the Magħtab Residents Association — appealed against a decision of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) that had partially upheld their earlier grievances but nonetheless confirmed the renewal of planning permission PA/02585/17. That permit authorised the construction of a cow farm to EU standards on a site in Magħtab, Naxxar, and was itself a renewal of an older 2008 permit. The core of the dispute centred on the proximity of 11kV high-voltage overhead cables to the proposed development. In a prior Tribunal appeal (179/18), the EPRT had directed the Planning Authority to re-consult Enemalta and obtain concrete safety requirements regarding the cables. Following that direction, Enemalta initially reiterated its objection, triggering a case officer recommendation for refusal. However, the Planning Commission then allowed the applicant's architect, Perit Claude Mallia, to liaise directly with Enemalta's engineer. Perit Mallia sent emails to Enemalta's Ing. Vella clarifying that no overhead line passed directly over the site, that the lines were not ordinarily accessible from within the site, and that no roofed structure or fixed machinery would be placed within 5.2 metres of the nearest overhead cable run. On the basis of this declaration and accompanying plans, Enemalta issued a no-objection clearance. The EPRT confirmed the permit but added a specific condition requiring compliance with the 5.2m clearance. The appellants argued that Perit Mallia's declaration was false, that the 5.2m distances were not achievable according to the submitted plans, and that the Planning Authority had failed to follow the Tribunal's earlier directions by simply accepting correspondence between the architect and Enemalta without independent verification. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants supported their allegation only with an affidavit from one of their number, Mr Portelli, without any technical expert evidence to contradict the architect's declaration and the accompanying plans. The EPRT therefore held that the Authority had correctly acted on Enemalta's final no-objection, and confirmed the permit with the 5.2m safety condition attached.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court confirmed the EPRT's decision upholding planning permission PA/02585/17 for the renewal of the cow farm permit, subject to the condition that no roofed structure or fixed machinery shall be built or placed within 5.2 metres of any close overhead cable run. No fines, prison terms, or confiscations were applicable as this is a civil planning matter.

• In Maltese planning appeals, allegations of false technical declarations must be supported by independent expert evidence — a lay affidavit alone is insufficient to displace a professional architect's sworn declaration corroborated by plans.
• The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose specific safety conditions on permits even when granting or confirming approval, allowing it to partially uphold an appeal without revoking the underlying permission.
• When the Tribunal directs re-consultation with a utility (such as Enemalta), the Planning Authority may satisfy that direction through correspondence facilitated by the applicant's architect, provided the utility ultimately issues a formal no-objection based on that information.
• Different voltage categories of overhead lines attract different safety regimes in Malta: 33kV lines require a 20-metre corridor, while 11kV lines are governed by international technical specifications (Technical Specification 43-8, Issue 3, 2004) rather than a fixed corridor rule.
• Connected planning appeals may be heard together and decided on the same day by separate judgments, promoting procedural efficiency in the Maltese appellate planning system.

Development Planning Act (Cap. 552) — planning permission renewal, Environment and Planning Review Tribunal procedure; Enemalta safety specifications for 11kV overhead cables (Technical Specification 43-8, Issue 3, 2004)