Case officer recommends refusal of rebuilding Mellieħa hotel ruins

The Planning Authority’s case officer has recommended the refusal of Mizzi Estates’ plans to redevelop the derelict Festaval Hotel in Mellieħa, citing a lack of crucial traffic and environmental studies that prevented a full assessment of the project.

The hotel ruins, spread over a 9,600 sqm site, lie within a Natura 2000 area of ecological importance and in the buffer zone of both the Grade 1 scheduled Red Tower and World War II defence posts.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had already objected to the hotel’s reconstruction, calling instead for the demolition of the ruins and rehabilitation of the ridge to restore the natural landscape.

The outline application, filed by Mizzi Estates Ltd and architect Edwin Mintoff, proposed demolishing the abandoned hotel and rebuilding it with the same footprint, gross floor area, number of rooms and external volume as the original structure approved in the 1980s, before the site was granted Natura 2000 status. Furthermore, environmental groups including Birdlife Malta, have objected to the rebuilding of the hotel ruins.

In its objection Birdlife Malta noted that what was proposed is in close proximity of the Foresta 2000 site, a long-term project commenced in 2003, between BirdLife Malta along with Din l-Art Helwa and the government, with the aim of establishing a Mediterranean forest that would become a wildlife refuge. Moreover, Birdlife warned that should the site be re-developed into a hotel, the area will “lose its remoteness, peace and tranquillity and therefore its recreational value.”  

The owners argued the project would replace the long-derelict ruins with a modernised hotel while retaining the parameters of the original permit.

But the case officer’s report stressed that without key submissions, the Authority could not properly evaluate the principle of development. Among the missing documentation were a traffic scoping statement, a tourism compliance certificate from the Malta Tourism Authority, and conclusions from the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required.

“The proposal lacks the necessary information to enable complete assessment in terms of transport, land use and environmental impacts, which are an integral part in determining the principle being assessed,” the report concluded.

The Mellieħa local council, however, is not satisfied with the report, insisting that the project should be rejected because it breaches policies protecting Natura 2000 sites and historical landmarks such as the Red Tower.

In a representation written by architect Carmel Cacopardo, the council argued that the development should be turned down on the basis of specific policies in the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development protecting landscapes and national heritage. 

MaltaToday understands that such an approach, would make it more difficult for the owners to resurrect the proposal in another form than if it were rejected solely on procedural grounds.

The hotel, designed by Richard England in the late 1970s, was built long before the site was designated as a Natura 2000 site and when Malta did not even have a Planning Authority.

Moreover, due to structural issues emerging at the early stages of the development the 31-apartment complex never opened to guests. It has since deteriorated into ruins, covered in graffiti and surrounded by vegetation, becoming an odd attraction for visitors intrigued by modernist ruins. The case officer’s report itself describes the ruins as “a destination for alternative tourists that seek modernist constructions taken over by nature.”

Mizzi Estates, part of the Mizzi Organisation, has been seeking to redevelop the site for decades, with various plans lodged since the 1990s. Past proposals ranged from a spa and rehabilitation centre to a masterplan for 23 villas. The company has also faced enforcement action for leaving the site in a derelict state, with the Planning Authority deeming the ruins “causing injury to amenity.” An appeal against the enforcement order remains pending.

The North West Local Plan only permits redevelopment of tourist facilities in rural areas in “very exceptional cases,” requiring very high design quality and an improvement to the rural or coastal landscape. Intensification of use or an increase in beds is normally resisted.

In this latest case, however, the refusal was not based on planning policy compliance but on the applicant’s failure to provide essential studies within the statutory timeframes. The case officer noted that despite repeated requests and meetings, the applicant did not submit the required documentation, leaving the Authority with no option but to recommend refusal.

The Planning Commission will now decide whether to uphold the refusal recommended by the case officer or overturn it. A final decision is now scheduled for Friday 26 September.