Approval for renewal of the permit for a massive residential development on the site of the former Mistra Village has been revoked and the case sent back to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal to consider whether the project is still compatible to current planning laws and policies. 

A number of objectors had filed an appeal against the tribunal’s October decision greenlighting the renewal of the permit for the construction of four blocks, including supportive commercial activities with underlying basements for private parking. 

The project also included the development of public open spaces, landscaped gardens and a communal pool. 

The appellants argued that the tribunal had not considered all laws, plans and policies when renewing the permit that was originally issued in January 2014 with a five-year validity period. The permit was renewed in 2019, in spite of environmental concerns.

The site at present. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Pending renewal, some demolition works had already started although not full demolition with the method statement indicating that demolition works were to commence in May 2022. 

But excavation works on site only started last March after the applicant filed an excavation method statement for the site on March 6. The construction regulator approved that plan a week later, on March 13. 

A commencement notice for the works had originally been filed on December 10, 2018 for works to start a week later. 

One of the requisites for renewal of the permit was proof that the development was “committed”, meaning that the proposed development was still in line with relative laws, plans and policies applicable at the time of the latest renewal. 

“This was a point of law,” observed Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, presiding over the appeal. 

That was where the court did not agree with the tribunal which had concluded that the commencement notice in itself was sufficient proof. 

The law imposed another requirement, namely verification that the development had reached such a stage that subsequent laws and policies could not be considered without prejudicing the development works already carried out. 

That was the “logical and reasonable” meaning of “commitment” in terms of law but the tribunal had not considered that element in detail. 

For that reason, the court revoked the tribunal’s decision and sent the case back to it to consider whether the permit was “committed” and consequently still compatible to laws, plans and policies currently in force. 

The appeal was filed by Priscilla Faenza Grima, Kevin Grima and Sandra Copperstone against the Planning Authority and Gemxija Crown Ltd. 

Lawyer Claire Bonello assisted the appellants.