The owner of Jasmine Nursing Home is seeking to stop works on an adjacent property in Valley Road, Msida, until the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal decides on an appeal.
Louis Buhagiar, a former Labour MP, argues that the development by Gauci 5X is in breach of building and zoning regulations. It is also detrimental to third-party property including his, he insists.
He also raises concerns regarding procedural irregularities and says that the Planning Authority approved the development despite alleged contraventions.
Gauci 5X, owned by Paul Gauci, is housed in the premises formerly occupied by Didi Auto Valley Service.
According to PA/00636/23, Gauci applied to make alterations to the development that had been approved by PA920/22, which included basement parking, a fuel station and ancillary facilities, including a Class 4B shop and a car wash. The application included the proposed additional use of Class 4C at ground floor level and Class 4A offices above the approved service stations.
In his submission, Buhagiar calls for the suspension of works pending a final decision by the tribunal. However, despite his request, the construction has continued, with the developer pushing ahead with works.
Buhagiar argues that this further complicates the tribunal’s eventual decision, potentially creating a situation where the development is too advanced to undo.
Buhagiar has urged the tribunal to ensure that the request is heard in a timely manner, to avoid exacerbating the issue.
Objections to development
In his submissions to the PA, Buhagiar suggests that the approval of the development is tainted.
The PA approved the permit on July 2 and published the decision on August 28. The first sitting of the appeal was held on September 26 and the board was chaired by Joseph Borg.
The sitting in which the development was given the go-ahead was held earlier than initially planned, potentially limiting the ability of interested parties to participate, he says.
Additionally, Buhagiar voices concerns about the composition of the board that granted the approval, suggesting that it may not have been constituted in accordance with the applicable regulations.
In his legal submissions, Buhagiar notes that such procedural shortcomings, whereby both parties were given three days to put forward their submissions, have hindered his ability to raise formal objections effectively.
He argues that the PA’s process has “severely hampered” his right to object in a fair manner, ultimately leading to the unwarranted approval of the development permit.
The ongoing construction has significantly advanced, while Buhagiar’s appeal remains unresolved. This, he contends, is putting undue strain on his property and business.