Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti has thrown out a claim that there was a lack of impartiality among members of the boards that granted the db Group its controversial permit to develop a site once occupied by the Institute of Tourism Studies in Pembroke.
Ruling on two separate cases, the court rubbished arguments that board members and a consultant who worked on the assessment reports had a conflict of interest, in breach of the principle of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing.
First proposed in 2017, the plans include the construction of two towers, 17 and 18 storeys high, and a 12-storey hotel, for a total of 386 five-star hotel rooms and 179 residences.
Residents and NGOs have long campaigned against the project, citing the negative impact on the environment as well as the quality of life of residents.
In June 2021, the PA granted a permit by a narrow margin, after five board members recused themselves ahead of the vote, citing a perceived conflict of interest.
A group of nine NGOs, three local councils and several Pembroke residents appealed the decision but the appeal was thrown out by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, forcing them to take the matter to court.
They sought to annul the permit on several grounds.
They argued the €250 million project did not conform to several planning policies, the studies submitted by the developer were incomplete and the process which led to an unfair planning board meeting and decision was “manipulated”.
In their appeal, the appellants called for the revocation of the permit, including the project’s non-conformity with planning policies, the defective and incomplete studies submitted by the developer and the “unfair” planning process.
Before hearing the merits of the case, the chief justice ruled on the complaint regarding lack of impartiality.
The complaints targeted Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) chairman Victor Axiaq, Marco Cremona, who was involved in drawing up the environmental impact assessment (EIA), and the involvement of Environment and Planning Review Tribunal member Alexander Zammit, who had been employed with the PA.
On Zammit, the PA said he had already left his employment when he took up his seat on the tribunal. The court ruled that the appellants had not managed to prove the link between Zammit and the PA.
On Axiaq, the appellants complained that he had already expressed his position in favour of the project and in favour of the EIA.
However, the court ruled his involvement in the EIA process as the head of ERA and his position as member of the PA when the matter was discussed were separate proceedings.
Chief Justice Chetcuti also observed that complaints about Axiaq should have been raised earlier, before the PA hearing, when they could have asked for his recusal.
On Cremona, the appellants argued that he had a conflict of interest since he had provided services to the db Group for another hotel in Mellieħa where the company was supporting his project related to recycled water.
However, the court noted that this project never took off, adding that the complainants had not managed to prove their claims.
They had not even called Cremona as a witness.
The court ordered that the case continues on the rest of the complaints.