From Dr M. Attard Montalto

I refer to the article written by Juan Ameen titled “Another tuna war: residents clamour for road formation” (TMIS, 7 August, page 3).

I am writing in the name of the owners to the land who are the Attard Montalto family, A.M. Developments Limited and the Scicluna family. The issue concerns an application for amending the existing road alignment that was recently discussed by MEPA. The application for a change to the road alignment and for the surfacing of the road in Triq it-Tonn, Saint Paul’s Bay, was submitted on 9 May 2005 by Architect Ellul on behalf of the Malta Transport Authority. As such the application was filed on the recommendation of Architect Robert Sant of the firm Sant & Mugliett, on behalf of the St Paul’s Bay local council.

Though the existing road alignment had been scheduled and designated since the late 1960s, the proposal submitted in May 2005 required an amendment to the road alignment. The amendment includes the annexation of a plot of land belonging to my clients that lies between the road as existing and a third party development. My clients believe that the amendment to the road alignment would serve no useful purpose to the residents. On the contrary, it appears that the amendment is required by a third party developer for the benefit of a development that is currently being carried out. This can be demonstrated by an analysis of the relevant facts. With the road alignment as proposed in PC application 25/05, the land being developed by the third party will acquire a frontage on two roads. At present, it has a frontage on Saint Paul’s Street. The amendment under consideration will give the site a frontage also on Triq it-Tonn by effectively taking over a plot of land belonging to my clients, which lies between the road as scheduled and the third party’s site. The advantages this would have for the third party are immense. With a frontage on Triq it-Tonn the third party will be able to construct underlying garages accessible from that road. According to planning policies, the split level would entitle the third party to acquire a further three floors.

The third party has already commenced works on the land in question and my clients have resorted to judicial action to restrain the development. A warrant of prohibitory injunction has been issued by the courts and this should prevent the developer from carrying out further works. My clients moreover have written to MEPA asking for enforcement action to be taken against the developer on the grounds that the third party application contained an incorrect declaration. The application by the third party contains a declaration to the effect that his plot has a frontage on the two roads.

Now that it is obvious that this is not the case, an application was filed to convert the missing part into part of the road. The story does not stop here. My clients discovered that this application was pending purely by chance. Although the law requires that the owners of the properties affected and the neighbouring properties be notified, my clients became aware of the procedures when one of them was at MEPA on separate business. The third party developer was notified and naturally did not object.

We wish to correct further wrong impressions given in the article. It is stated that Mark Napier is claiming that the owners of the land (my clients) objected to the proposed alignment and he says that the owners wanted the road to be moved into an alleged protected area. This is absolutely incorrect. The whole area (including the area currently earmarked for road development) is scheduled property on the basis that this is a site of historical interest (it is claimed that there are cart ruts). My clients have appealed against the scheduling of their property and the proceedings are pending in front of the Planning Authority Appeals Board. Ironically, the approval of the amendment would actually have the effect of increasing the area of land covered by the road, thereby having a major impact on the land in caption. It is ironical that the Authority is ready to consider an amendment to existing road alignments increasing the coverage on scheduled land. MEPA has furthermore not taken any action to protect the land against residents who at present make various uses of the land in question including as a parking area.

My clients are not against the tarmacking of Triq it-Tonn and agree that the present road, which passes over their land, should be completed and surfaced in the shortest time possible. They are however against the amendment in the scheduled road alignment, since this would require a larger tract of land to be taken over for road development than is currently envisaged, and this to the detriment of the owners. They simply want the road alignment to remain as it always has been. Furthermore, the amendment would serve no useful purpose except to sanction the encroachment on their land by a third party developer.

Mark Attard Montalto

Advocate