Just two weeks after securing the final permit for his much-contended Fort Cambridge project, the man behind the mega development, GAP Developments head George Muscat, is suggesting the drafting of some sort of strategic plan for the Tigné peninsula in which the authorities decide what development can take place in the next few years and then that's it, no more development.
In other words, he is recommending a moratorium on development in the area, which will give people living in the area "breathing space" from constant development; very much what they have been calling for themselves. He makes his proposal in rhetorical terms but insists that it would be "ideal for everyone".
It takes the kind of cheek developers are known for to make such a suggestion after ploughing through with a project that faced a mountain of objections by residents on precisely this point, but he just might be able to get environmentalists and residents with him on this one.
Of course he is not saying that there should be no more development. "Whatever development is going to take place in the area should be decided on as soon as possible and given strict deadlines for completion," he says, highlighting the fact that his company has a commitment to finish the entire development in three years.
"If there are people ready to accept this sort of decision, it would be ideal, wouldn't it? What needs to be done is done in this period and then nobody can do anything. Obviously there needs to be a general agreement."
He should know something about needing general agreements on such matters, as his project was strongly contested in the past few years. The 20-storey development was approved earlier this month, in a highly contentious sitting which saw a statement announcing that the project had been approved, accidentally released to the media before the sitting had even started.
The 341-apartment complex has had a windy history. Up to the point when Mepa approved the outline permit last year everything was looking up but the authority's decision to waive the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) haunted the project after the European Commission announced it could issue infringement proceedings against the government for failure to abide by EU legislation on EIAs.
In October the authority eventually demanded one, even if it denied that the pressure from Brussels had anything to do with its decision.
The final incident during the hearing that approved the project just confirmed in the eyes of protestors their long-held view that the project was a done deal. Yet, Mr Muscat insists he did not exert any unwarranted pressure on Mepa.
"Actually, we did put pressure," he says impishly, "just like environmentalists, residents and all those who had a stake in this development."
Despite having had the planning process lengthened even if not derailed by protests, Mr Muscat says he views the objectors positively. "I think there was a space for people to express their views and concerns and that is how it should be. The end result is what it is because of this input; the project is better than it would have been without the consultation process."
The peaceful tone jars with the turbulent atmosphere at the actual sitting in which his entourage of experts and employees engaged in a verbal war with the residents and the environmentalists. However, he insists on the point.
"I think the resistance was normal, I appreciate the opinion of environmentalists. Now, we're in the position we are not because we won and they lost but because the rational choice won," he says.
The company had issued a €35 million bond issue, which was over-subscribed by some €3 million in a matter of weeks, even before the project was given the final seal of approval. The prospect of being denied the permit at the final stage or at least having it radically altered must have had him jittery.
"Not at all, we know that the outline permit (a preliminary permit issued by the authority) is legally binding," he points out confidently, "so there was no worry about that; besides, the development brief (which was issued by the government when it sold the land) clearly stated the maximum space that can be developed."
In effect the company will be developing only 18 per cent of the 27 tumolo tract that forms the Fort Cambridge footprint, he insists. A large part of the area is actually taken up by the historic fort, for which, he points out proudly, GAP has already applied for the permits to restore it, even if it could leave it till later.
The restoration of the fort and the open spaces which the project incorporates may go some way in rendering the apartments a more attractive buy, but the complex will still be developed in an area which is seen by many as having been ruined by development over the decades.
He nods in disbelief on this point: "I think there's no question about the attraction of the area, you've got more and more people wanting to buy a place in the area from all over the island.
Figures speak for themselves and besides the apartments we have already sold in this project, we've had other property in this area and it's always sold before any other area."
The statement is backed up by the staggering fact that Fort Cambridge has already sold well over 60 per cent of its stock, with only seaview apartments costing €450,000-plus left for sale.
Still, a major concern which was raised but not fully addressed during the Mepa consultation process behind the approval was the traffic congestion that Fort Cambridge, along with other nearby large-scale projects in the area, might create.
"The traffic problem has always been an issue. Some people choose to live in a certain way and others choose to live in another, so I wouldn't even call it a problem because wherever you have this sort of cityscape, you always have a traffic problem," he rebuts.
The difference between Malta and urban settings elsewhere, however, is that abroad there is generally an efficient public transport system available, and besides, Fort Cambridge will likely exacerbate the problem.
"Today we don't have that system, but it doesn't mean that we won't have one. If someone takes on the challenge," he adds optimistically, just as the transport strike goes into its second day.
"Besides, our project provides 2.5 car spaces for every apartment and we believe that will be ample stock to cater for the development."
Nonetheless, Mepa approved the project without there being a comprehensive traffic management plan in place which takes into account the impact of Midi, Fort Cambridge and other upcoming projects. Isn't he worried that the traffic problem will make his project less attractive?
"With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take lessons on how to sell apartments from you," is his blunt reply. "Besides, the authorities are studying how to improve the traffic in the area. Maybe there is no final strategy but there are studies being carried out. That is how you get the best decision, by developing studies."
Ultimately, people will be proud of this project once it has been finalised, he stresses, as they have been of other projects GAP was involved in.
"We are offering something very unique in my view... you have a project where there's a lot of open spaces, you've got very decent apartment sizes and a state-of-the-art building in terms of energy saving features, so yes, I'm confident that it will get people's approval in the end."
In other words, he is recommending a moratorium on development in the area, which will give people living in the area "breathing space" from constant development; very much what they have been calling for themselves. He makes his proposal in rhetorical terms but insists that it would be "ideal for everyone".
It takes the kind of cheek developers are known for to make such a suggestion after ploughing through with a project that faced a mountain of objections by residents on precisely this point, but he just might be able to get environmentalists and residents with him on this one.
Of course he is not saying that there should be no more development. "Whatever development is going to take place in the area should be decided on as soon as possible and given strict deadlines for completion," he says, highlighting the fact that his company has a commitment to finish the entire development in three years.
"If there are people ready to accept this sort of decision, it would be ideal, wouldn't it? What needs to be done is done in this period and then nobody can do anything. Obviously there needs to be a general agreement."
He should know something about needing general agreements on such matters, as his project was strongly contested in the past few years. The 20-storey development was approved earlier this month, in a highly contentious sitting which saw a statement announcing that the project had been approved, accidentally released to the media before the sitting had even started.
The 341-apartment complex has had a windy history. Up to the point when Mepa approved the outline permit last year everything was looking up but the authority's decision to waive the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) haunted the project after the European Commission announced it could issue infringement proceedings against the government for failure to abide by EU legislation on EIAs.
In October the authority eventually demanded one, even if it denied that the pressure from Brussels had anything to do with its decision.
The final incident during the hearing that approved the project just confirmed in the eyes of protestors their long-held view that the project was a done deal. Yet, Mr Muscat insists he did not exert any unwarranted pressure on Mepa.
"Actually, we did put pressure," he says impishly, "just like environmentalists, residents and all those who had a stake in this development."
Despite having had the planning process lengthened even if not derailed by protests, Mr Muscat says he views the objectors positively. "I think there was a space for people to express their views and concerns and that is how it should be. The end result is what it is because of this input; the project is better than it would have been without the consultation process."
The peaceful tone jars with the turbulent atmosphere at the actual sitting in which his entourage of experts and employees engaged in a verbal war with the residents and the environmentalists. However, he insists on the point.
"I think the resistance was normal, I appreciate the opinion of environmentalists. Now, we're in the position we are not because we won and they lost but because the rational choice won," he says.
The company had issued a €35 million bond issue, which was over-subscribed by some €3 million in a matter of weeks, even before the project was given the final seal of approval. The prospect of being denied the permit at the final stage or at least having it radically altered must have had him jittery.
"Not at all, we know that the outline permit (a preliminary permit issued by the authority) is legally binding," he points out confidently, "so there was no worry about that; besides, the development brief (which was issued by the government when it sold the land) clearly stated the maximum space that can be developed."
In effect the company will be developing only 18 per cent of the 27 tumolo tract that forms the Fort Cambridge footprint, he insists. A large part of the area is actually taken up by the historic fort, for which, he points out proudly, GAP has already applied for the permits to restore it, even if it could leave it till later.
The restoration of the fort and the open spaces which the project incorporates may go some way in rendering the apartments a more attractive buy, but the complex will still be developed in an area which is seen by many as having been ruined by development over the decades.
He nods in disbelief on this point: "I think there's no question about the attraction of the area, you've got more and more people wanting to buy a place in the area from all over the island.
Figures speak for themselves and besides the apartments we have already sold in this project, we've had other property in this area and it's always sold before any other area."
The statement is backed up by the staggering fact that Fort Cambridge has already sold well over 60 per cent of its stock, with only seaview apartments costing €450,000-plus left for sale.
Still, a major concern which was raised but not fully addressed during the Mepa consultation process behind the approval was the traffic congestion that Fort Cambridge, along with other nearby large-scale projects in the area, might create.
"The traffic problem has always been an issue. Some people choose to live in a certain way and others choose to live in another, so I wouldn't even call it a problem because wherever you have this sort of cityscape, you always have a traffic problem," he rebuts.
The difference between Malta and urban settings elsewhere, however, is that abroad there is generally an efficient public transport system available, and besides, Fort Cambridge will likely exacerbate the problem.
"Today we don't have that system, but it doesn't mean that we won't have one. If someone takes on the challenge," he adds optimistically, just as the transport strike goes into its second day.
"Besides, our project provides 2.5 car spaces for every apartment and we believe that will be ample stock to cater for the development."
Nonetheless, Mepa approved the project without there being a comprehensive traffic management plan in place which takes into account the impact of Midi, Fort Cambridge and other upcoming projects. Isn't he worried that the traffic problem will make his project less attractive?
"With all due respect, I don't think I'm going to take lessons on how to sell apartments from you," is his blunt reply. "Besides, the authorities are studying how to improve the traffic in the area. Maybe there is no final strategy but there are studies being carried out. That is how you get the best decision, by developing studies."
Ultimately, people will be proud of this project once it has been finalised, he stresses, as they have been of other projects GAP was involved in.
"We are offering something very unique in my view... you have a project where there's a lot of open spaces, you've got very decent apartment sizes and a state-of-the-art building in terms of energy saving features, so yes, I'm confident that it will get people's approval in the end."