Balzan residents want the planning authority to take responsibility for mistakes they are claiming have favoured a developer who applied to build 13 apartments in a villa area.

They are also accusing the authority of making a “dramatic U-turn” by withdrawing from an appeal and reaching a court settlement with the developer – essentially giving the go-ahead to a permit that is still being appealed by residents.

The origin of the problem was a mistake in the zoning of St Francis Street in Balzan as a terraced house area as opposed to a villa area.

With such pro-developer decisions Mepa will be setting a bad precedent to the ruin of this quiet, villa area

This mistake allows the construction of 13 apartments on three floors rather than one two-storey villa on the site that is a wedge-shaped plot located on St Francis Street corner with St Gabriel Street.

“A mistake needs to be corrected, not taken advantage of… We expect good planning control from Mepa,” resident Kenneth Bartolo said.

The mistake, investigated and confirmed by the Mepa audit office and the Ombudsman, was recognised by the local planning unit as a “genuine mistake” made during consultation for the approval of local plans.

The auditor’s report quoted the unit saying the mistake was caused by the “misinterpretation” of central local plans resulting from faded watercolours on the temporary provision schemes in which the area was labelled as a villa area.

This wrong “impression” was further strengthened when two Mepa officers went to inspect the site and mistook a villa for a terraced house.

By the time the developer applied to build, in 2004, St Francis Street was still zoned as a villa and the permit was refused since the project was not compatible with existing villas – the argument still being made by residents.

In order to avoid similar future applications, residents insisted on the mistake being corrected and 422 residents signed a petition that was backed by the local council.

Residents also filed a judicial protest and, in 2010, Mepa started a process to correct the zoning mistake. This was halted by the developer, who appealed against the refusal and obtained an injunction to stop the rezoning.

Then, in May 2012, the planning review tribunal granted the developer the permit to build. Mepa and the objectors took the matter in court.

However, last month the objectors were informed that Mepa had reached an out of court settlement agreement with the developer.

This was confirmed by a Mepa spokesman who said that, through the agreement, the developer agreed to withdraw two court cases, including a claim for damages, against the authority and the injunction.

“In the agreement, Mepa agreed to implement the decision of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal of May 10, 2012,” the spokesman said. This decision allowed the building of 13 apartments and is still being appealed by residents.

Now 39 residents have filed a judicial protest holding Mepa responsible for damages should the permit be granted as this would devaluate their property.

“How can Mepa, in 2013, favour building flats in an area that Mepa had, in 2010, started a rezoning application for to correct its own mistake,” Mr Bartolo said.

He said Mepa’s design policy had not changed since 2009, so how could the authority justify its decision?

“With such pro-developer decisions Mepa will be setting a bad precedent to the ruin of this quiet, low density villa area,” he said.