Tigerman to have more of his illegal zoo regularised by PA

Zoo owner Anton Caruana Cutajar, known as “Tigerman”, is expected to be given another round of retrospective planning approval for unauthorised development at his ‘L-Arka ta’ Noè’ zoo in Siġġiewi.

A Planning Authority case officer is recommending approval of an application covering further irregularities and extensions at the rural attraction, subject to a €31,869.92 fine and a separate €25,000 contribution towards environmental projects in the locality.

The recommendation is expected to be approved by the government’s Planning Board today.

The application seeks to sanction deviations from the zoo’s previous permit, including a multipurpose hall and the reorganisation and extension of farm animal enclosures. It also proposes additional parking, paddocks, stables, underground machinery and tool storage, and the relocation of the zookeeper’s living quarters.

The existing approved living quarters would become stores.

The case officer’s report records a total application site of 32,000 square metres, with approximately 18,100 square metres already dedicated to the zoo. The original sanctioning permit covered approximately 10,565 square metres.

Listed additions include 1,300 square metres of parking, 3,134 square metres of farm animal cages and 2,000 square metres accommodating paddocks, stables and a manure clamp.

The latest application follows a lengthy planning history related to Caruana’s illegal development. Caruana is a staunch Labour supporter and a canvasser of Chris Fearne, currenty facing criminal charges in court.

In March 2011, the PA refused an application to regularise stables, a horse pool, cages and other structures. Reasons included unnecessary urban sprawl, visual intrusion into the countryside, harm to agricultural land and breaches involving protected rubble walls. Cutajar subsequently withdrew his appeal.

The existing zoo was eventually sanctioned by Labour under a permit approved on October 3, 2018.

A separate application seeking retrospective approval for further structures, including a farmhouse with a pool and a multipurpose hall, was withdrawn.

During assessment of the current proposal, the Agricultural Advisory Committee initially said the applicant was ineligible for a residence under rural policy. However, it subsequently raised no further comments on the residence after the architect explained that the proposal involved relocating an already approved farmhouse.

A proposed condition would tie the keeper’s house to the zoo’s continued operation, with development rights forfeited if zoo activities cease.

The report also records that several consulted bodies, including the veterinary regulator, Civil Protection Department and Occupational Health and Safety Authority, did not reply within the statutory consultation period with the PA considering their silence as no objection.

The Environment and Resources Authority submitted conditions, while other consultees issued clearances following revisions.

Concluding that the upgrade and sanctioning were acceptable from a planning perspective, the case officer recommended granting permission.

Those proposed conditions explicitly state that permission would cover only the development identified in the approved drawings, leaving any other unauthorised development outside its scope.

The illegal development, once an agrigurlureal field and disused quarry is now regulary used as a wedding and party venue and includes various entertainment facilities  including a restaurant.