A couple who live next door to what could become a block of flats in Sliema yesterday filed a judicial protest to stop the development from going ahead.

New plans would be submitted inline with setparameters

John and Lilliana Cutajar said a number of legal anomalies arose leading to the issue of a permit for the building of a block of apartments next door to them.

The site in question is situated on the corner of George Borg Olivier Street and Sir Luigi Camilleri Street and is owned by Alfred Falzon Sant Manduca, who had already applied to have the block built on April, 24, 2003.

The application was for the building of offices, four overlying apartments, a penthouse and an underlying garage but it was recommended for refusal on November 20, 2003 and was eventually refused by the Development Control Commission on March 16, 2004, the couple said.

The applicant appealed but his appeal was dismissed on February 3, 2005 and, on the same day, he again appealed from that decision. This time, his appeal was upheld by the Appeals Board, the couple said.

In a ruling dated June 22, 2011, the Appeals Board revoked the DCC decision and ordered that the permit be issued provided that the existing building was demolished.

The Appeals Board also imposed a number of other conditions which consisted of alterations to the building.

The board said that in imposing the conditions it had given an indication as to how the project could be approved because the visual impact of walls without windows would be considerably reduced.

The board also said that Mr Falzon Sant Manduca would have to submit new plans in line with the parameters it had set, the couple noted.

The Cutajars are insisting that the Appeals Board decision was illegal because it could not issue any permits. Instead of relying on the documentation brought before Mepa, upon which the decision was taken to refuse the development, the board demanded new plans for its own approval. It also breached the principles of publicity necessary in planning proceedings by substituting the plans published during the processing of the application with new ones without going through the necessary legal channels, the couple added.

If the board found against a Mepa decision, the board could only express itself in that sense and give directions on the basis of the plans referred to in the appeal, the judicial protest said. It certainly could not issue a permit instead of Mepa, basing its decision on plans that were not subjected to all relative and applicable legal resources, the couple argued.

The Cutajars asked the court to stop any development on the site including, if necessary, by revoking the permit issued.