The developers behind a set of 24 apartments in Mosta are insisting that the project is completely within scheme and planning rules.

In a letter sent to the planning authority by their legal adviser, Ian Refalo, the developers said the permit for the project was issued “after due and proper consideration” following studies that discarded environmentalists’ claims.

“The developers have always claimed they were developing what was developable and they were in no manner in breach of the law,” the letter said.

The project has been highly criticised by environmental groups, especially Ħarsien Patrimonju Mosti, which has spearheaded a petition with 24,000 signatures to revoke the permit and restore and protect the valley known as Wied il-Għasel. The petition was given to both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader.

It argues the permit violates several planning policies because it allows development on the side of a valley that is a protected nature and tree reserve.

Nature Trust appealed the planning decision and a ruling on the appeal is expected later this month.

In the letter, also sent to the two party leaders, Prof. Refalo said he neither had “the advantage nor the luxury to verity the purported 24,000 signatures claimed by Ħarsien Patrimonju Mosti, nor the level of information and commitment of those induced to sign”.

His clients took up the project after “full and due consideration” by the authorities, with people being given every opportunity to raise objections.

A “dispassionate” look at such objections indicated that “the fears raised were inexistent” and that the developers had the right in law to build the property.

“This has been an ongoing saga for years and this recent petition is a last, desperate attempt to bring to naught what the developers have legally obtained.”

Prof. Refalo pointed out that the development would “interfere” with the view of a limited number of residents but added this was “no reason” for not allowing a development.

He replied to claims by Ħarsien Patrimonju Mosti, among others, expressing concerns about the last standing rubble shed, or girna.

He pointed out that the developers requested “professional advice” aout the building.

Without going into the merits on whether such structure was genuine or something more “commonplace”, the developers had “provided substantial guarantees” that it would not be demolished or damaged as per permit conditions.

His clients were “surprised” at the statements made and were reserving their rights to take action against it for damages.

A planning authority spokesman denied that the permit threatened the existence of the girna as it imposed a €50,000 bank guarantee and required the developer to restore it.

The proposal, restrained within development zone, will also manage to screen a considerable stretch of less attractive back elevations, according to the spokesman.

Site’s planning history

In 2004, the planning authority granted an outline development permit to demolish an existing dwelling and build an old people’s home.

The proposal had included an area that fell outside the development zone but the regulator had insisted it would only allow the development to take place within the building boundaries. This was included in a condition in the permit.

A request to build apartments was submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009. The fact that the applicant chose to change the project to apartments from an old people’s home to a residential development was “acceptable” because both uses fell within the scheme, according to Mepa.

A spokesman said the planning authority was looking into an application, submitted by the developers, to amend the permit by removing two basement levels of garages. If approved, this means that the developer would excavate a maximum of two storeys below street level.

Also, the size of the apartments would be reduced but the number will remain the same.