No fewer than 183 St Julian’s residents, living in an area known as The Gardens and its surroundings, have filed a judicial protest against Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) officials, over the Pender Place development plan that was approved a couple of weeks ago.

In their protest, filed yesterday, the residents stated that two separate notices were published in a local newspaper in October 2005, for the excavation and development of two sites that were previously owned by Maltacom plc – Pender Place and the site occupied by Mercury House.

Understanding the extent of the proposed development and the negative impact it would have on the surrounding residential area, the concerned residents had formally objected to the project, giving detailed reasons why Mepa should not approve the proposed development.

Soon after, on 21 November, 2005, a meeting was held between Mepa officials, representatives of the protesting residents and the St Julian’s local council.

The residents’ objections were explained and the Mepa officials ascertained the residents and the local council representatives that a meeting with the developers would be organised to discuss and possibly resolve some of the residents’ objections.

A few sporadic meetings were held over the next few months, during which the protestors expressed their position on the said development.

More time had passed by and the residents were informed “at very short notice” that a Mepa board was going to hold a meeting to consider the project on 1 February, 2007. The general public was also invited to the meeting, which was in fact advertised in some newspapers.

In their judicial protest, the residents argued that the meeting should be declared null and with no effect, since a number of important decisions were made, but these are irregular and even illegal.

The residents stated that Mepa officials themselves had drafted and eventually issued the project’s development brief.

The developers simply needed to apply for the necessary permits in line with the development brief and in doing so they were almost assured that Mepa would issue the permits. As a result, the fact that Mepa was not an independent adjudicator renders the process legally unfounded.

Moreover, the residents said that not all the board members are technically qualified to evaluate the aesthetic, architectural, environmental and social impact of such a project.

Declaring that some of the board members work privately as architects, the protestors stated that the board cannot possibly be objective and impartial in a way that ensures citizens’ rights and duties.

The protestors reserved their right to take these legal objections to any court or judicial tribunal, possibly even to the European Court of Human Rights if the need arises.

A number of technical considerations should have limited the approval of the project, stated the protest.

Among other aspects, the residents are protesting against the excavation of about 450,000 tonnes of stone that will not only cause a serious inconvenience to residents, but will also pose a threat on their health over a period of a number of months and possibly years.

They are also protesting against the negative impact on the area surrounding the sites, particularly the residential area. The protestors are stating that the project will damage their property and pose a threat to the stability of existing buildings, not to mention the negative impact on hotels in the area.

The residents are holding Mepa responsible for any damage that may be caused should the project proceed as planned.

They are demanding the reversal of every decision of the meeting held on 1 February, during which the two above-mentioned applications were approved with certain reservations.

The residents are also demanding that the process leading to further approval of the project be brought to a halt.

Prof. Ian Refalo and Legal Procurator Edgar Montanaro signed the writ.