Objectors to a development in an internationally protected area of Mosta are alleging a conflict of interest and lack of ethics in the adjudication process.
They are saying the process was tainted since architects Joseph Bondin and Paul Buhagiar - who are involved with the project - sat on Malta Environment and Planning Authority boards for a number of years.
A Mepa spokesman confirmed the Development Control Commission B (DCC B) board took the decision on the Mosta application at Wied il-Għasel at reconsideration stage. Mr Buhagiar, one of two architects appointed by the developer Joe Micallef, sat on DCC B for several years.
The other architect, Mr Bondin, who was involved with the first outline application - for a senior citizens' home - sits on Mepa's Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC).
In 2002, Mr Bondin simultaneously sat on one of the DCC boards and the HAC while practising his profession. The HAC's role is to act as a watchdog over the DCC.
Mr Bondin is facing legal action over two separate cases of lack of ethics in architectural projects. Magistrate Carol Peralta filed one of the cases, claiming the authorities violated his fundamental human rights when they expropriated land he owned in St Julian's to accommodate developers.
The other involves a case in Żebbug, Gozo, where residents are accusing Mepa of irregularities when it permitted the development of a farmhouse outside the development zone. Mr Bondin was the architect named on the applications for both projects.
At the court hearing of the Gozo case last June, statistics drawn up by environmental organisation Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) showed that in three years, 29 of the applications Mr Bondin submitted for the Mosta area were recommended for refusal by Mepa's technical experts. Of these, 22 were overruled by DCC boards and planning permits issued.
The application for the Mosta development in Wied il-Għasel was made on September 6, 2005. Two years later, the DCC refused permission. Yet, the DCC B board overturned the original decision last January.
One of the main arguments brought against the development in Mosta is that the applicant did not mention the presence of the last standing ġirna (corbelled hut) in the heart of a Maltese town.
The site is listed as a nature reserve within the World Database on Protected Areas, managed by the United Nations Environment Programme as well as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Ħarsien Patrimonju Malti, which is also objecting to the development, classified it as a Category III - Natural Monument.
Residents said they were shocked at Mepa's permit approval and claim their rights were violated because the development site notice was not affixed to the premises for the length of time required by law. Twenty-four residents submitted affidavits to Mepa in this regard.
According to Mepa, one of the conditions within the approved permit specified that it is subject to written clearance from the Environment Protection Directorate regarding the demolition, or carrying out of significant alteration, of a rubble wall/ non-habitable rural structure. But before the EPD can decide, the appeal scheduled for May 15 must first be concluded.
In the meantime, residents said the developer has already demolished protected old rubble walls on site even though he was not in possession of the necessary permit.