The following is a right of reply from the owners of the Grand Hotel in Ghajnsielem to the 17 January 2016 article entitled ‘Whitewash alleged in controversial Ghajnsielem Grand Hotel developments’.

Grand Hotel and its owners wish to put on record that the allegations made by Astrid Vella about the development of the Grand Hotel being riddled with abuse are absolutely unfounded and that Ms Vella has, in pursuance of her personal agenda, embarked on an unholy crusade of vilification, lies and slander.

Ms Vella has been repeating the same unfounded allegations for the last five years. This has instigated the Commissioner of Lands into filing a lawsuit before the Courts claiming that Silvio Rapa and the hotel have usurped public land, caused damages to public property, order the defendants to return the public property to its pristine state, and failing that to authorise the plaintiff to carry out the necessary works itself, to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damages caused to public property, and to order the defendant to provide a bank guarantee in favour of plaintiff.

During the course of the trial of that lawsuit, the court heard exhaustive evidence, including technically qualified persons who were commissioned both by the Department and by those who instigated the allegations.

In its judgment, delivered on 27 February 2015, the Court found that no usurpation of government property had ever taken place. In the Court’s words:

“Illi din il-Qorti ttendi biex taqbel ma’ dak sottomess mill-konvenuti fin-nota ta’ sottomissjonijiet taghhom u cioe’ li l-applikazzjoni ta’ l-artikolu 571 tal-Kodici Civili hija eskluza f’dan il-kaz. Il-Qorti tqis li dan huwa kaz ferm partikolari. Ma jirrizultax li lkonvenuti okkupaw xi parti mill-art ta’ l-attur b’xi bini fis-sens ta’ l-artikolu kkwotat. Li sar kien irdim tas-sottoswol b’materjal li ma telax aktar ‘il fuq mis-superficje tal-art. Dan l-irdim sar sabiex jigi ripristinat materjal mejjet li ntefa’ mid-dipartiment kontra l-arti u s-sengha u li beda jaqa’ ghal gol-proprjeta’ tal-konvenut meta mar biex jizviluppa l-proprjeta’ tieghu. Dan l-artikolu jsemmi li l-gar huwa obbligat li jhallas kumpens lil sid l-art li huwa jkun okkupa in buona fede biss jekk ‘fit-tlugh tal-bini’ huwa jkun okkupa art u l-obbligu tal-hlas huwa relatat mal-‘valur tal-wicc li jkun okkupa’. F’dan il-kaz il-konvenuti ma tellghu l-ebda bini fuq art l-attur u lanqas okkupaw xi parti mill-wicc tal-art tal-istess attur”.

Hence the Court rejected all the plaintiff’s demands except the first request – viz. A declaration that the Government is the owner of the Belvedere, since the defendant never contested that demand; and essentially ordered that all judicial costs be borne by the plaintiff.

Ms. Astrid was in duty bound to verify the position before, five years down the line, repeating the unfounded allegations she first brought forward in 2010; and is therefore liable to prosecution both under civil law and under criminal law.

She should also have been aware that in addition to remedying at their own cost the work on the subsoil in respect of which the Department of Works failed to adhere to the rules of good workmanship, the Grand Hotel and its owners restored the Belvedere to a much higher standard than the original one. This is evidenced by the photos that are attached to this declaration: in this respect Ms. Vella has chosen to present photos of the Belvedere in its state during 2010 rather than the Belvedere as finally reconstructed and embellished.

Finally, Astrid Vella is absolutely incorrect in reporting the conversation which she alleges to have overheard in the Grand Hotel some five years ago; the words she imputes to the Mepa officials are nothing but fabrications invented by her. Contrary to Ms Vella’s allegations, the Mepa officials in question were only carrying out their duties by carrying out an inspection on the development being carried out at the Grand Hotel and instructing the owners on what needed to be done in order to ensure that the conditions of the development permit regulating the development be rigorously observed. Neither Grand Hotel nor its owners or its representatives ever met or discussed the matter with Mr. Austin Walker, contrary to Ms. Vella’s insinuations to this effect.

Another factor which evidences Ms Vella’s malicious intentions is the circular email that FAA Committee, of which Ms Vella is obviously an integral part, has circulated to all FAA’s members. This email, a copy of which is also attached, starts with detailed instructions to the addressees for them to delete the opening part, sign the remainder and send it off to Mepa. The opening part shows Ms Vella’s devious methods of artificially drumming up opposition from her members who are most probably not aware of the facts of the application  to which they are opposing. The circular serves to show up Ms Vella for what she really is.

Ms Vella would be better serving the interests of the environment if she were to disclose why she adamantly and incorrectly criticises a development, being carried out within a development zone, whose maximum height measured from the level of Hamri Street Ghajnsielem is only three floors, whereas failing to mention the fact that developments on the other side of Hamri Street have a maximum height of four floors and semi-basement.

Grand Hotel avers that the entire development at the Grand Hotel is in full compliance with the relative building permits and the application currently being processed by Mepa is in full compliance with all applicable Mepa rules, regulations and policies.