A final decision on a controversial application for an apartment block on a tract of agricultural land in Nadur was deferred once again on Friday, with the Planning Authority’s Planning Commission expressing concerns over the mass of the development and the lack of a buffer between it and the adjacent outside development zone.

The project at hand is the “proposed excavation of site to required levels, proposed construction of basement garages to accommodate 61 car spaces and 40 overlying residential apartments and 11 penthouses, including landscaping” on a site in Triq il-Qortin in Nadur.

The initial application, revealed by The Malta Independent last year, would have seen the construction of two basement levels with 74 garages, a communal pool, and 71 apartments across a height of four storeys.

The application is situated on a tract of agricultural land which is within the development zone, having been included in the controversial 2006 rationalisation scheme.

After the application was met with a huge negative response - over 1,300 people submitted their representations against the project to the Planning Authority - it was suspended by the applicant - a firm called Titan Development Limited.

It remained suspended for a number of months, however was reactivated in September 2021, with downscaled plans submitted in June 2021, and then later on in the year.

The Planning Authority’s case officer recommended that the project be given the green light, but in a sitting last January an issue emerged after an objector said that part of the land was his mother’s and that while the applicant had said that they had permission from the owners, nobody had approached him or his family to seek such permission.

As a result, Planning Commission chair Stephania Baldacchino referred the case to the Planning Authority’s legal office for direction.

Friday’s sitting was in many ways a continuation of that sitting back in January:  it was characterised by intense arguments on the ownership of the site, with the applicant claiming that it had permission of the site owner – Carravan Company Ltd – to apply for the development and an objector claiming that the development was in part on land which they owned.

The ownership matter was the subject of an update to the case officer’s report filed on 13 September, which said that the applicant submitted an amended application form declaring that “I am not owner of the entire site, but I am authorised to carry out such proposed development through an agreement with the owner”.

“It is to be stated that applicant submitted documentation to the Planning Authority which certifies that it was granted consent to submit the planning application in question by the owner. From a planning perspective, such authorisation and consent satisfies the certification required in terms of Article 71(4) of Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta,” the case officer said.

“As a side note, it is to be noted that applicant submitted also documentation to substantiate the fact that the authorisation and consent given by Carravan Company Limited was indeed given by the owner. Whilst the documentation submitted by applicant satisfies Article 71(4) of Chapter 552, it is pertinent to assert that ownership issues do not fall within the remit of the Planning Authority,” the case officer added.

It was however argued that the exercise which was done does not satisfy doubts on a parcel of land owned by a family in the area.  It was initially said that the land in question was on the footprint of the site which was to be developed, but it was later clarified that this land is not on the site of the development but the only passage which can access it is.

A two-hour argument between the applicant and several objectors ensued, with the Planning Commission ultimately determining that as long as it had an assurance from the PA’s legal office that the documentation submitted satisfies Article 71 then it was not the competent forum to judge on issues of ownership.

It was pointed out that the documentation mentioned by the PA’s legal office in reaching its conclusion was not made available online through the PA’s e-application website, and it was determined that the documents will be made available in the coming days.

Concerns raised over buffer of project to ODZ, mass of project within context of the area

From a planning perspective, Baldacchino said that the project as was proposed did not conform with planning policies concerning the buffer between the development and the adjacent ODZ land.

She said that there must be a site curtilage of three metres of “clear and open space” between the development and the ODZ land, and that this area needs to be “open, landscaped with indigenous species and which mitigates the built fabric.”

Issue was also raised by all three members of the Planning Commission on the massing and design of the project, with concerns that it does not fit the context of the area.

Baldacchino said that the concern is how the project will look from far away, while board member Mireille Fsadni said that there needs to be a better transition into the ODZ land which is adjacent to the development.  The other board member Anthony Camilleri also raised issue with the height of the proposed development, saying that it does not fit the context of the area.

On the applicant’s part, the project’s architect Ray Demicoli said that a stacking effect was used and floors were receded as much as possible in order to blend the development with the surroundings as much as possible.

He said however that more studies will be undertaken in order to add more trees and change some of the colours proposed for the building so that it could blend in with its surroundings better.

Objectors also noted that the project does not take into account the fact that the road does not have any drainage service to it. 

It was noted that the project’s case officer did not request further feedback from the Water Services Corporation on the matter, and the Commission resolved to instruct the case officer to address this matter.

Nadur mayor Edward Said in fact mentioned the drainage aspect as one of the reasons as to why the Nadur local council was opposing the project.

“We don’t know what is going to happen or what the plan is, but once it’s built there will be a problem and it will fall on the council’s shoulders while the applicant becomes a millionaire off of the flats he’s built,” Said lamented.

Said also pointed out that there was no plan to cater for the run-off from rain water as a result of the loss of fields, and noted that the parking in the project was not enough – although the parking in the plans is in line with planning policy.

A decision on the project was deferred with the applicant being instructed to rectify the planning issues mentioned by the Planning Commission pertaining to the massing of the building and its curtilage with the adjacent ODZ.

The next sitting, when a final decision is expected, will take place on 21 October.