A controversial planning application proposing the demolition of the existing Pulvic explosives factory and the construction of “boutique accommodation”, catering for a total of 14 guest bedrooms built within 10 separate one floor blocks, is set to go before the Planning board on Thursday.

The proposal also features a communal pool area, 20 car parking spaces, landscaping works and reinstatement of rubble walls.

The site is located outside the development zone boundary of Dingli and gains access from Triq il-Qaws. The area is known as ‘tal-Qaws’ lies between ‘L-Irdum ta’ l-Iħfar’ and ‘Ix-Xagħra tal-Qaws’ and is located on high ground overlooking the scenic Mtaħleb and Dingli cliffs. The actual site is currently occupied by the Pulvic Explosives Factory.

The development forms part of an Area of Ecological Importance, protected by Level 3 Buffer Zone, within a Natura 2000 site, within a Special Area of Conservation for Coastal Cliffs and within an Area of High Landscape Value, the case officer’s report reads.

The application has seen hundreds of objections filed. Among other things, objectors said that this would set a dangerous precedent, opening the gates for sprawling development in ODZ area. “This will also give rise to dangerous precedence for similar fireworks factories.”

Another objection read that the proposal does not have any touristic value, “but rather the construction of 14 bungalows which can easily be sold off or rented out individually. What makes the development a ‘tourism development’ rather than a ‘residential development’? As such the proposal description for a ‘tourism development Class 3A’ is false.”

The Planning Directorate in response, said: “Approval would be subject to conditions, case in point being subject to a public deed as per Condition 1, which limits its use to tourist accommodation and does not allow for permanent residential occupation. Tourism accommodations will be bound to operate as one functional unit and are not sold or transferred separately, including the prohibition of individual compliance certificates. Development rights will be forfeited should the proposed boutique accommodation cease to operate as one functional unit.”

The case officer’s report read that the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) “acknowledged that the choice of location of particular hazardous developments such as explosives factories, may often be constrained by safety considerations and may thus need to be located away from residential areas. The entity stated that it does not support the principle that such development should serve as a pretext for committing sites for further development, however it notes the current built commitments on site.”

The ERA also referred to their objections for the proposed redevelopment of an Eco-spa & resort in the previous applications, also considering the extensive intensification of development that would have been introduced by these proposals. “It (the ERA) stated that compared to what has been proposed in previous applications, the proposed development has been downsized and generally contained within the existing massing,” the case officer’s report read. “The entity recommended further consolidation of the built-up areas towards the central part of the site, allowing more space on the fringes of the property for adequate soft landscaping. In addition, ERA contended that the proposal should be strictly limited to one storey in all areas of the proposal and that there should not be any basements.”

In terms of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, the screening concluded that the proposal is not expected to have any significant impacts on the integrity of the habitats, species and the Natura 2000 site as a whole. “In their conclusions the ERA stated that it has no objection to this proposal, subject to conditions it made,” the case officer said.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (SCH) however did take issue with the proposed development. Both the SCH and the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) “expressed concern at the intensification of development as proposed, which would inevitably result in the formalisation of this significant rural and cultural landscape Outside Development Zone, concluding that it finds such works unacceptable in principle and strongly objects to this development application as proposed, urging the rehabilitation of the landscape.”

The Dingli Local Council submitted a representation letter presenting their objection to the proposal, stating that the development goes against the applicable policies.

The council also outlined that the site lies within protected areas, with the proposal “clearly violating” the regulations for development within the Natura 2000 site.

The local council reiterated that once the explosives factory is no longer required, such land should be returned to nature and the area reinstated to its original state.

The Project Description report states that the new design of the project was based according to the contours of the site; able to retain all structures at a single storey and blending further with the existing surroundings, mitigating most visual impact, the case office’s report read.  “Such visual impact will also be mitigated further through time once the landscaping has matured. Being a highly environmental sensitive area, and unlike the present situation, the low profile and the breaking up of the floor area into multiple smaller structures achieves better integration with the context. This would also include the removal of all blank party walls at the perimeter of the site.”

The Development Management Directorate deemed the proposed development acceptable from a planning point of view, as, among other things, “the area is already covered by relevant development permits in relation to the building mass and land use for a fireworks factory; The replacement building will not exceed the total floor area of the previous building; The new development reads as a much higher quality rural design structure then what currently exists on site, and respects further the wider context of its surroundings, among other things.

The case officer recommends that the application be granted.