Regulators abused powers to benefit developer with St Paul’s Bay roadworks

A court has slammed a 2006 decision by the planning authority to change its rules and allow a turning loop in a dead-end street that benefitted a developer.

The court ruled the authority, then known as MEPA, abused its power to appease the developer of an eight-storey apartment block in St Paul’s Bay.

The court ultimately found in favour of the plaintiffs, owners of the land expropriated for the building of the turning loop, and declared the decision null and void.

The plaintiffs, the Attard Montalto family, presented several claims to the court, all stemming from their belief that MEPA had abused its powers in approving a Planning Control application that negatively impacted their land, and which did not serve a public utility but rather the private interests of SIAR Property Investments.

The core of their argument rested on the claim that the MEPA’s decision to approve the planning control application led to an arbitrary and discriminatory outcome, favouring SIAR’s commercial interests at the expense of the Attard Montaltos.

By altering the existing road layout, a turning loop was to be situated on Triq it-Tonn. The plaintiffs’ land, encroached upon by SIAR during their development project, was directly impacted by the proposed changes in the PC application.

The proposed roadworks were to be carried out on a substantial portion of the plaintiffs’ land, with the PC application leading to the expropriation of their land for the road alterations, at the costs of the exchequer, and granting SIAR the advantage of the new road alignment for their eight-storey block.

As it turned out, the 2006 application for the change in planning guidelines for the area had been approved by MEPA despite the plaintiffs’ objections, and supported by Transport Malta.

However, MEPA had also initially rejected an earlier application by Transport Malta for a similar development because it negatively impacted a scheduled property and third-party property. MEPA then reversed its decision less than a year later, approving the PC despite objections from residents.

The Attard Montaltos’ land was subsequently expropriated, but the court agreed that MEPA and Transport Malta had acted to benefit SIAR’s development plans rather than serving the public interest, specifically to improve the aesthetics of SIAR’s building by obscuring a large blank wall and minimally widening the road.

Transport Malta, at the time ADT, maintained that its submission of the PC application was driven by the public interest, specifically to improve landscaping and facilitate better traffic management in the area.

Despite MEPA’s initial rejection, Transport Malta resubmitted an application for the turning circle (PCA 0054/2006) in the same year. Notably, MEPA approved this application despite objections from residents, suggesting a departure from their previous concerns about negative impacts on properties.

The court explicitly stated that there was no apparent logical reason for MEPA’s reversal and that the available documentation did not offer a reasonable justification for the sudden shift in their assessment of the project.

The court’s analysis of the evidence led it to conclude that the MEPA likely changed their stance to accommodate the development plans of SIAR Property Investments.

MEPA’s abrupt change in position, coupled with the lack of a clear justification and the court’s findings of favouritism towards SIAR, suggested that improper considerations influenced their decision-making process.