A court has rejected an appeal by NGOs and residents to overturn a planning permit for a massive development in Naxxar, declaring that the mayor did not have a conflict of interest when she voted in favour of the project.
Approved in 2021, the application seeks to build two high-rise structures of 10 and eight storeys respectively, with a public open space between the two, on the site of the car park of the former Naxxar trade fair grounds.
The project is planned to include four basement levels with 346 parking spaces and 108 garages, a 700 square metre gym and a spa with a 355 square metre indoor pool, as well as a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a 200 square metre child care centre and 12 commercial outlets, with 136 residential units spread over nine floors.
A group of objectors initially filed an appeal with the Environment Planning Review Tribunal, citing the impartiality of mayor Anne Marie Muscat Fenech Adami as a grave concern.
They said that she had voted in favour of the project despite the Naxxar council having previously said it was opposed to high buildings in the locality.
Muscat Fenech Adami, they said, is the company secretary of Chalet Bulgari Ltd, of which the project’s architect, Edwin Mintoff, is a director and shareholder. She is also CEO of Veduta Estates Ltd, a company that owns 14% of Chalet Bulgari Ltd.
The EPRT turned down the appeal and found that there was no conflict of interest in Muscat Fenech Adami’s decision and that she had been “free to express herself” as she thought was appropriate and in accordance with her oath of office.
In a judgement handed down by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti on Wednesday, the court agreed with the EPRT’s decision on the matter when it concluded that any relationship between Muscat Fenech Adami and Mintoff “does not lead to justified fears of a conflict of interest as described by the law”.
“That is why, although it is true that Anne Marie Muscat Fenech Adame knew architect Edwin Mintoff professionally, it does not result that this professional relationship could have affected the performance of her duties on the Planning Board,” the judgement said.
“In her role in the named company Muscat Fenech Adami had no financial dependence on Mintoff and her wages are paid from a company that Mintoff is neither a director of nor has actionable power over. Muscat Fenech Adami also did not have 'regular and close professional relations with the same architect and neither was she his subordinate and this is why there is no form of professional dependence nor hierarchy between Muscat Fenech Adami and Mintoff',” it continues.
“There is nothing that indicated that Muscat Fenech Adami and Mintoff were particularly close friends, in other words, that their relationship went beyond a professional relationship as office colleagues or that they have ever discussed the merits of the project, that could have led Muscat Fenech Adami to form a preconceived opinion about the application that was being decided by the Planning Board.”
The court also rejected the claim that tribunal chair Robert Sarsero had a conflict of interest when deciding the case because he had worked as an architect for the applicant on another case.
It found that although the appellants had asked for Sarsero’s recusal during proceedings, they had initially consented to the composition of the board set to decide on their case and could not change their minds so late in proceedings.
“If the appellants had reservations about Sarsero’s impartiality they should have raised this issue before declaring that they have no objections to the composition of the board and if they failed to do so then it is imputed sibi,” the judgement said, meaning that it was their responsibility to raise the matter and not any third party’s.
The appellants’ grievances about the interpretation of the floor area ratio policy, the size of the public open space and the tribunal’s failure to safeguard the environment were also rejected by the court.