Stivala claims confidential deal with objectors was necessary for ‘orderly close’ of Townsquare proceedings

Developer Michael Stivala, who is currently spearheading the contested Townsquare tower project in Sliema, claimed that a confidential agreement signed with 14 former objectors to the project “was necessary to bring long-running litigation and objections to an orderly close.”

On Wednesday, The Shift exposed how Stivala reached a private agreement with 14 residents who previously formed part of a years-long campaign of objections to the project.

That campaign against the project primarily stemmed from both the project’s size and scale as well as the developer’s decision to include previously unannounced plans for a 10-storey hotel and an additional 75 residential apartments within the 28-storey tower that forms the project’s centrepiece.

In that confidential agreement, Stivala agreed to modify a contested planning application by removing plans for the 10-storey hotel in exchange for residents’ tacit endorsement of the project, including explicit non-disclosure clauses.

When asked to justify the strict confidentiality surrounding the agreement, Stivala further claimed that this was necessary “to provide certainty to a project that had been stalled for years through multiple appeals and court proceedings.”

“This is a lawful and standard mechanism used in complex planning and civil disputes to de-escalate conflict, avoid further court action, and allow the statutory planning process to proceed without parallel private litigation,” Stivala claimed.

“The confidentiality clause is standard in settlement agreements. Its purpose is to ensure finality and prevent continued dispute through selective disclosure or mischaracterisation of a private legal settlement. It does not override any law, court ruling, or public planning process, all of which remain fully applicable and transparent through statutory mechanisms,” he added.

While nobody is disputing the right of private parties to negotiate out of court settlements to de-escalate legal proceedings in civil disputes, the fact is that the agreement obliges those former objectors “to endorse and not object to any other applications made to any other government authority.”

When asked whether ST Property Investments excludes any hotel development on the same site in the future, Stivala was non-committal in his answer, arguing that the court did not prohibit a hotel “in principle” and that its ruling only specifies “that any built volume should be positioned closer to third party walls so that public open space is consolidated rather than fragmented.”

As correctly stated in our previous article, Stivala admits that the hotel component is being removed entirely “from the current application”, and that any future proposals would be subject to planning policy, court rulings, statutory consultation, and regulatory approval.

While the private agreement does not overrule any legal process, it nonetheless influences ongoing public processes through a deliberately restrictive settlement. Stivala rejects this assertion as an allegation, and dismisses the notion that the private agreement amounts to interference.

“The agreement does not grant permissions, bind authorities, determine outcomes, or bypass statutory procedures. It simply reflects a voluntary decision by private parties to terminate litigation and objections in relation to a specific application,” Stivala said.