The Environment and Planning Tribunal has thrown out an appeal by Gozitan developer Victor Borg, who claimed the planning authority’s interpretation of policies affected his proposal to build villas at Mġarr Ix-Xini.

The tribunal said his appeal had been filed “prematurely”.

The case revolves around a letter sent to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority by then Environment Minister George Pullicino in September 2006, over the interpretation of a sentence in the local plans.

The policy affecting the area says development should be limited to the “vicinity of the existing Ta’ Ċenċ hotel”.

Clarifying the ambiguity of the word “vicinity”, the minister wrote that the local plans should not be taken as allowing new development in the area of Ta’ Ċenċ overlooking Mġarr ix-Xini.

The board approved the Government’s direction in the interpretation of this policy.

The move hit the most controversial part of Mr Borg’s project, which involved the development of 57 villas in one of the more scenic areas of the site.

The developer had reduced the number of proposed villas to 36 and filed an appeal.

No decision has yet been taken on the development plans.

Mr Borg’s defence lawyer Ian Refalo had argued that this “decision” was wrong, prejudiced his client’s rights and was taken without a fair hearing.

The guidelines and policies for the area did not exclude the possibility of further development in the area, he said.

In the context of all the work done with the planning authority, this decision amounted to a decision against his project without a fair hearing, he argued.

The tribunal said the letter had the weight of a decision like any other sent by the authority to applicants during the processing of their planning bids.

However, the law established clear dates and time frames when an applicant could file an appeal.

The letter was not published like other board decisions and such publication was “an essential requisite” in appeal procedure.

Mr Borg had to finalise the application process for the planning board to take a decision and, if the application was refused or included an objectionable condition, he could file an appeal according to procedure.

Although the letter could be considered as a decision as it affected the proposed development, the appeal was filed prematurely, the tribunal ruled.