The db Group has reportedly "reactivated" its application for the highly-resisted Pembroke City Centre project located on the former Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS) site.
In June, a court annulled the Planning Authority (PA) green light for the project to go ahead, citing conflict of interest concerns due to one PA board member, Matthew Pace. Mr Pace is a franchise owner of Remax Alliance Swieqi, with the courts arguing that he stood to benefit from the project's approval as his real estate agency was selling properties within the project.
The massive project, worth some €300 million, would see the former ITS site become a 37-storey residential and office space tower, a 17-storey hotel and a shopping complex.
On Friday, db Group announced that it was "reactivating" the project's application to get approval for the full permit. It stated that some "alternations and rescaling" have been made to the application, "which have been in gestation since the original permit was issued last September".
Media reports say that the application has been filed under the same PA number rather than as a completely fresh application, however the plans have been altered.
The db Group added that it was in complete disagreement with the court's conclusions, saying:
"The revocation was based exclusively on one, single point- that the court deemed a member of the adjudicating board had a conflict of interest…Clearly, this had absolutely nothing to do with the db Group and even less so with the project itself."
Mr Pace had also taken issue with the court's decision, commenting that he had been handed judgement without being made a party to the case or provided with the opportunity to clarify his position. He had also said that the court based its decision on "third-party information" and that he would clarify his position at the opportune time.
The project had received an unprecedented number of registered objections, at 4,500, coming from NGOs, local councils, residents and civil society.
In its statement on Friday, db Group said that the court did not "express a view" on the project itself, and avoided delving into the merits of the case. It stressed that all procedures and laws were followed when submitting the original application and will continue to do so.