The redevelopment of the site currently occupied by the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS) in Pembroke is again in the news: the public sector is providing the land while the dB Group will rake in the profits - amounting to millions of euros.
During this week various media outlets focused on the millions being forked out for the eventual purchase of entire floors in the dB Group towers. These are not the price for purchase of property still on plan, because no permits have yet been issued, nor have the plans as yet been finalised. The examination of the proposed development by the planning authorities is still in its initial stages: the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) has just kicked off the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) statutory consultation period, which is scheduled to run until 12 February. Notwithstanding the fact that the ERA may recommend changes to the planned project as a result of its consideration of the EIA, it seems that the developers are sure there will be no planning or environmental issues that can put the brakes on what most people consider an ill-advised project.
The documents presented for public scrutiny are voluminous but possibly incomplete, and I have already written to ERA to complete the missing information gaps, at least those identified to date.
A basic document of interest, available on the ERA website, is the Project Description Statement (PDS) - the work of an as yet unknown partnership of architects going by the name of 'Landmark Architects'. It transpires that this partnership is headed by former Transport Minister Jesmond Mugliett, who writes on page 5 of the PDS as follows: "On the 2nd of February 2017, the Government of Malta and dB San Gorg Property Limited signed the contract for the granting of the RFP site. Both the Government of Malta and dB San Gorg Property Ltd agree that evaluation of the project development should not extend beyond the minimum time frames established by Planning Law." To my mind, this signifies that the government has already tied the Planning Authority's hands as to how it should operate in this case.
The developer is not (apparently) worried that the Paceville Master Plan was sent back to the drawing board after the agitated public consultation late in 2016. The author of the PDS, in fact, informs us that "The Government of Malta and dB San Gorg Property Limited continued with negotiations, eventually coming to an agreement that it was not in the interests of the project, the Maltese Tourism Industry and the Maltese economy to wait for the conclusion of this Master Plan."
Does this not undermine the whole consultation process? What planning rules and/or policies will the Planning Authority follow at the former ITS site? On what criteria will the development proposal be evaluated - it already clearly goes beyond what is permitted in the applicable 2006 local plan.
Some time ago, we were informed that no new developments in the area would be given the go-ahead until such time as a new draft Paceville Master Plan was launched. It was then emphasised that the proposals for the Pembroke ITS site can only be properly assessed when the Paceville Master Plan is in place.
This pledge has been blatantly ignored by the development proposal. It was also pledged that the new proposed Master Plan will not be tainted by conflicts of interest as was the original one. Will this pledge also be ignored?
An architect and civil engineer, the author is chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - The Green Party in Malta.
[email protected], http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com