Input to Villa Rosa Local Plan Review

I object to the sham consultation process in connection with the Partial Review of the 2006 North Harbours Local Plan for Paceville (Villa Rosa Site).

It is to be highlighted that:

·       There has been a singular lack of transparency about the reason for this Local Plan review. The Prime Minister has stated that a request was made – this should be published in full. This would also indicate why this exercise (if requested by an individual) was undertaken by the Government/PA when the individual requesting the modification of the Local Plan could have followed the Planning Control application procedure of Article 54 of Chapter 552 of the Laws of Malta with the payment of the relative fees.

·       A specific policy for Villa Rosa already exists and is incorporated in the present Local Plan. It already makes provision for the different areas within the site and their respective planning designation and density. The safeguarding of scheduled sites and areas of ecological value is also already provided for.

·       While the PA has stated that the review will be “limited specifically to the Villa Rosa site as delineated by the 2006 Local Plan,” the document, in reality, covers an additional area beyond what is defined as Villa Rosa in the 2006 Local Plan. This additional area coincides with the site covered by PA/07254/22 — the Tal-Franċiż application, which seeks to build three towers, ranging from 27 to 34 floors, effectively burying St. George’s Bay, engulfing the historic Villa Rosa building, and consuming the only open space left between St. Julian’s and Pembroke.

·       The review document states that one of its objectives is to determine “c. zones where higher quality hotels shall be allowed”. This seems to be implying that “higher quality hotels” will be allowed to be sited in prime spots, possibly obstructing views of Villa Rosa, and/or shadowing the valley and/or the beach. There should be no preferential treatment for hotels if their siting impinges upon residential amenity or scenic or environmentally sensitive sites. Moreover, there have been no published studies or reports indicating that there is a dearth of tourists in Malta, or that high-rise buildings are the only hotels which can accommodate so-called high-quality tourists.

·       This Local Plan does not clarify one crucial factor – who is going to pay for the infrastructural works which will inevitably be required to accommodate the intensification of use? Will it be the taxpayer or the developer of the site? The PA is duty bound to quantify developer’s financial contribution at this point, and not to hide behind vague wording.

It is evident that the sole aim of this consultation process is that of enabling the construction of a mammoth project presented in application PA/07254/22. It is surely no coincidence that the revision process began after the developer’s meeting with the Cabinet, that it covers the exact area of his proposed project, and that its stated objectives align with changing development parameters, so that what is currently prohibited becomes permitted.

Proposing such a harmful development, beyond the allowed parameters, and then changing the laws to accommodate it, is clear evidence of a power grab by developers over our politics and institutions.

I therefore call on the PA to immediately halt this abusive process, which is driven by private interests rather than the common good.