A five-storey development proposed alongside Mosta's Wied il-Ghasel has been refused by the Planning Authority Board.

It was refused with a five to three majority during a sitting held on Thursday, having already been recommended for refusal by the Planning Authority’s case officer.

The development was proposed on Mosta's Triq il-Kostituzzjoni - one of the town's main thoroughfares - instead of a dwelling known as Villa Paramount.  The dwelling is situated directly opposite the Casa Arkati care home and overlooks the protected Wied il-Ghasel valley.

The developers, Jarom Investments Ltd, planned to completely demolish the terraced house together with its pool and ancillary areas - parts of which are in an Outside Development Zone and which also lie in the buffer zone for the valley, which is considered an Area of Ecological Importance.

Instead, the developers wanted to build a five-storey mixed development featuring four underground levels as well. 

The proposal included two garage basement levels with 37 lockup private garages and 29 parking spaces, a substation, a Class 2A medical clinic at ground floor and level -1, an apartment block having 16 apartments and 3 penthouses with ancillary gardens and pools, and a Class 3C gym.

Furthermore, the proposal also included a detached 87 square metre dwelling at the back of the site, which is incidentally situated in an ODZ.

Close to 100 objections were filed against the project, with members of the public highlighting that the development was "objectionable in principle." Objectors argued that the development would have an adverse environmental impact on the valley, and that the proposed height went beyond what is allowable in the Mosta North Building Height Limitations Map, and would also ruin the streetscape on that side of the road.

Streetscape plans submitted by the developers compared the plans to the height of Casa Arkati which sits on the opposite side of the road and which it was aligned with, save for an additional level of penthouses.

The case officer had raised several issues as to why the development could not be favourably considered.

The case officer said that the proposed gym was too large in scale to be considered for a residential area, that it had a dwelling situated in the ODZ which in itself was objectionable, and that the transition between the development and the ODZ that it faces was not adequate.

The developers filed new plans up right up to the day before the sitting – Wednesday – but these were not considered, and the architect admitted that there were only minimal changes.

Project architect Robert Grech argued that they had not been given any opportunity for dialogue with the case officer, and noted that points such as the depth of the property and the objection that it had no frontage onto a schemed road had been addressed.

Planning Board chairman Emanuel Camilleri said however that he feels that the case officer’s concerns had not been adequately addressed during the architect’s presentation, and another board member said that while he believed that the project was “saveable” he disagreed with the concept of the standalone dwelling being situated in ODZ.

An attempt for the applicant to be allowed more time to submit fresh plans was rejected, with the board moving to vote – a vote which ended in the project being refused.