Sliema development controversy (1)

I refer to recent items carried by The Times regarding a development in St Anne's Square, Sliema. I would like to make clear the following points to ensure a correct interpretation of events.

The residents of dwellings in St Anne Square, corner with the former Allwares retail outlet, approached the Malta Environment and Planning Authority about their case. During meetings held at the authority it was explained that:

1. Since they did not object to the development within the public consultation period as required by law, they could not refer their grievance to the Planning Appeals Board from where they could seek redress.

2. The development permit was issued subject to third party rights and the permit did not give any legal title to the developers that they did not previously enjoy.

3. Article 39A of the Development Planning Act specifies that only in cases of fraud or where public safety is concerned or where there is an error in the face of the document can the authority revoke or modify any development permission if this had a material bearing on the decision.

4. After the approved plans were referred to, the residents wrote to the chairman requesting the modification of the approved permit since an existing wooden balcony overlying the porch of Allwares was indicated as a solid wall when this was not so. The residents felt this point was a material issue on the basis of which the authority approved the permit.

5. The residents were also invited to seek legal advice on how best to protect their rights by possibly seeking a court injunction to stop those works that could prejudice them should Mepa consider modifying or revoking the approved permit if it agreed that article 39A applied in this case.

6. It was also pointed out that the grade 2 scheduled building referred to in GN700/95 refers to the Majestic Theatre and not to any of the adjacent sites.

7. The residents were also advised to request the Land Department to intervene if they could prove that the projection of the proposed development was on public land.

Subsequent to this meeting with the Mepa board secretary, the residents filed a letter with the authority invoking the provisions of article 39A of the Development Planning Act. The Mepa board, during its meeting of May 23, investigated the complaint further and decided to request the permit holders/architect of the proposed development to make their submissions on the matter within 15 days as prima facie it was considered that the provisions of article 39A are applicable.

A meeting in public is scheduled for June 8, when the Mepa board will decide whether development permit PA1176/00 is to stand as is or, by order of the board, modified or revoked.