French ambassador’s security concerns put Żebbuġ development on hold

A Planning Board meeting to decide on extensions to a property adjoining the French ambassador’s official residence in Żebbuġ was postponed on Thursday 5 November, after the applicant submitted a security assessment only days before the sitting.  

The sitting was postponed by six weeks, because documents have to be available for public scrutiny at least 15 days before board meetings.

Security assessment commissioned

The embassy requested more time to examine the report, prepared by SHIELD Consultants Ltd and commissioned by the applicant, notary Michael Laferla.

The assessment argues the proposed development is unlikely to significantly increase security risks to the adjoining diplomatic residence.

The postponement follows an unusual sequence of events in which objections by the French ambassador over the security of her official residence led five board members to declare, at an earlier meeting in August, that they would vote against a development recommended for approval by the Planning Authority’s (PA) case officer.

The application (PA/00129/24) concerns alterations and extensions to a property at 38b, Triq Sant’ Antnin, adjoining Palazzo Manduca, the official residence of French ambassador Sandrine Lelong-Motta.

The French government has owned the palazzo since 1998. In her original submission, the ambassador also raised heritage concerns.

The planning case officer had recommended approval after concluding the planning and heritage concerns had been addressed. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage had also cleared the proposed works, subject to conditions.

 At the 27 August meeting, Ambassador Lelong-Motta personally addressed the board. She explained Palazzo Manduca had been owned by the French government since 1998 and had been acquired with the expectation that its existing security and privacy would be maintained.

The ambassador warned the two additional floors proposed by the applicant could obstruct windows overlooking the residence’s internal courtyard, reducing natural light and ventilation in rooms including bedrooms and bathrooms.

She also expressed concern the development could create a direct connection between the respective rooftops, compromising the security and privacy of the diplomatic premises.

Lelong-Motta referred to the historic and architectural value of Palazzo Manduca, which dates back to 1716, and the investment made by the French government in preserving the building and its gardens.

Access to new development’s roof could compromise security

Architect Matthieu Bourez, a heritage specialist from the Building Directorate in Rome, raised concerns about the additional structural load on the historic building and the impact of enclosing the courtyard on ventilation and humidity. He also warned access to the new roof for maintenance could compromise the security and privacy of the residence.

The embassy’s architect, Perit Tara Cassar, argued the increased height would create an elevated platform from which future occupants could observe activities and movements within the diplomatic residence.

She stressed the assessment should consider the long-term implications of the development rather than assume that future occupants would behave in the same way as the current applicant.

She also maintained the proposed one-metre parapet would not prevent access to the roof or eliminate the possibility of overlooking the residence.

Laferla disputed these concerns, arguing the existing low-level roof already allowed views towards the embassy and that the revised plans, which removed part of the proposed roof area and restricted access, would improve the situation.

The applicant’s architect also maintained the development would remain lower than the adjoining residence and that other buildings in the surrounding area were higher. The architect said the applicant had removed a substantial part of the proposed roof area and closed off the section overlooking the embassy.

The case officer had considered the revised plans acceptable, noting that access to the rear roof terrace had been removed to safeguard the privacy and security of the diplomatic premises.

The directorate also considered the proposed height and façade acceptable within the surrounding streetscape.

 However, the board’s chairman stressed the main issue was not simply privacy, overlooking or loss of light and ventilation, but the security of a diplomatic residence and Malta’s international obligations to protect diplomatic premises.

The chairman, Joe Agius, Romano Cassar, Karen Zerafa and Karl Cutajar subsequently declared they would vote against the directorate’s recommendation because of security concerns.

Cassar also cited privacy concerns and argued the lowering of the existing ceiling was intended to facilitate an additional floor.

Since five members had declared their intention to oppose the recommendation, the application was deferred under Regulation 13(4) of the planning regulations.

The Executive Chairman instructed that a new refusal reason be drafted under Article 72(2)(d) of the Development Planning Act, treating security as a material planning consideration.

The proposed refusal reason stated the increased height and elevated vantage point, close to the diplomatic residence, could make it easier to observe activities and movements within the premises. It also said that the proposed one-metre parapet wall and restriction on direct roof access did not adequately address this concern.

The security assessment submitted ahead of Thursday’s meeting, dated 23 October and received by the PA on 30 October, reaches a different conclusion. It rates the additional risk created by the development as “low”, provided certain design and access measures are put in place.

SHIELD makes clear its assessment looks only at the additional risk arising from the proposed development. It does not assess the overall security of the ambassador’s residence or examine the embassy’s own security arrangements.

One of its arguments is that the surrounding area already contains several properties with rooftops higher than the diplomatic residence. The report identifies four such properties and refers to a photographic survey documenting these buildings.

It also refers to photographs showing an existing line of sight between the applicant’s property and the diplomatic premises.

According to the assessment, this line of sight is expected to disappear once the development is completed. However, the report says this still needs to be checked against the final architectural drawings.

The proposed development would increase the height shown in one section of the report from 8.53m to 9.64m, a rise of 1.11m. SHIELD argues an increase in height does not automatically mean that the ability to observe or threaten the diplomatic premises is increased.

Its low-risk assessment depends on measures including restricting access to the rear roof to authorised maintenance, controlling contractors and visitors, and checking the design of openings on the upper floors.

The report also acknowledges its assessment of the local threat level as low is a professional judgement, rather than a formal intelligence rating. This is because it did not have access to classified information or intelligence specific to the diplomatic mission.

Dispute raises unusual questions for PA

The dispute raises an unusual question for the PA: how should it weigh the security concerns of a diplomatic mission against an applicant’s argument that a proposed development would not significantly increase the risks to it?

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations obliges the receiving state to take appropriate steps to protect diplomatic premises against intrusion or damage and to prevent disturbance of their peace or impairment of their dignity.

It does not, however, automatically give a diplomatic mission a veto over development on adjoining private property.

The property lies within Żebbuġ’s urban conservation area and close to the Grade 1 parish church of St Philip of Agira and the Grade 1 Ospizio San Giuseppe.

Heritage concerns had focused on the removal of traditional timber and stone-slab ceilings, alterations to historic fabric and the impact of the extensions on the surrounding streetscape. The case officer considered these issues addressed following the superintendence’s clearance, subject to conditions.

No final decision has yet been taken. The Planning Board will have to consider the applicant’s assessment alongside the ambassador’s objections and its own earlier concerns before deciding whether the extensions can proceed.