St Julians property owners challenge injunction bid

The owners of premises at St Julians Ramp, St Julians yesterday argued that Bajja Developments Ltd, the owner of Le Meridien St Julians Hotel, was not entitled to file a request for the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.

BBR Construction and David Aquilina filed both a protest and a reply to Bajja's application for the issue of the warrant.

They declared they owned the house at 8, St Julians Ramp, which property, together with the adjacent house at number 7, were the subject of Bajja's application.

Bajja had requested the First Hall of the Civil Court to prohibit Mepa from issuing permits for the two houses that would lead to their demolition and replacement by two blocks of flats.

But BBR and Mr Aquilina said yesterday that neither house was listed as a grade 2 property by Mepa.

The two properties had a grade 3 listing in terms of the Structure Plan policy, but the other properties in the area, namely Villa Blanche, Villa Pruili and Villa Cassar Torreggiani, had been listed as grade 2 buildings.

Properties listed as grade 2 were of historical or architectural interest and permission to demolish was not normally given. On the other hand, grade 3 buildings were described by the Structure Plan as having no historical importance. Demolition of such properties might be allowed provided that the replacement building was in harmony with the surroundings.

Bajja was attempting to maintain the view from its hotel. But it would be incongruous if the two houses in question remained in a dilapidated state when the surroundings consisted in blocks of flats.

In its protest BBR said it had applied for a permit to demolish its property in 2002, and had also applied for the descheduling of the house at number 8 so that it could be rebuilt.

Mepa had found in favour of BBR and had ruled that there was no valid reason for the house to remain listed as a grade 3 property. The development permit was then approved by Mepa.

Once that had occurred, then BBR and Mr Aquilina claimed that Bajja Developments Ltd was not entitled to file a request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction, for its only option was that of appealing to Mepa's appeal board and subsequently to the Court of Appeal.

Bajja was not entitled to stop the issue of an approved permit.

BBR and Mr Aquilina added that Bajja had no right to be protected by the issue of a warrant, for it enjoyed no servitude consisting in a right to a view and could not stop third parties from building in front of its hotel.

Lawyer Edward Debono acted on behalf of BBR and Mr Aquilina.