Legality of Jerma development brief in Marsaskala challenged by NGOs

NGOs file judicial protest insisting that a development brief proposal released by the Planning Authority for the ex-Jerma Hotel site increased the developable area beyond what the local plan stipulates

The area in red indicates the site of the Jerma Hotel that was indicated as requiring a development brief in the 2006 local plan. The blue area shows the extended area included by the PA last year requiring a development brief.
The area in red indicates the site of the Jerma Hotel that was indicated as requiring a development brief in the 2006 local plan. The blue area shows the extended area included by the PA last year requiring a development brief.

Seven environmental organisations are challenging the legality of the Planning Authority’s decision to extend the Jerma Hotel development brief beyond the parameters set by the local plan.

The organisation filed a judicial protest against the authority, accusing it of holding a “vitiated and irregular” consultation process on the development brief for the former hotel site in Marsaskala.

The local plan approved in 2006 defines the Jerma Hotel site as an area that requires a development brief, outlining the actual zone that should be included in the exercise.

However, towards the end of last year when the PA opened a consultation exercise on a proposed development brief, it included other areas adjacent to the hotel grounds.

The protestors noted that the authority included a green area, which should be accessible to the public and where no increase in height or volume is permitted and St Thomas Tower, a heritage site which is already subject to specific policies.

Moreover, the PA arbitrarily laid down an area of 100,000sq.m that could be developed within the site.

The ex-Jerma hotel site in Marsaskala could see 40,000sq.m of residential development and 60,000sq.m of tourism development under the PA's proposal
The ex-Jerma hotel site in Marsaskala could see 40,000sq.m of residential development and 60,000sq.m of tourism development under the PA's proposal

The Muscat-led government had asked the PA to draft a brief allowing the development of 40,000sq.m of residential development and 60,000sq.m of tourism on the Jerma site.

“In practice, this irregular development brief would lead to a massive project that would impact negatively the infrastructure of Marsaskala and the lives of residents, with no long-term benefit to the locality,” the groups said.

The organisations stated that this was not in line with applicable laws and policies and called upon the authority to withdraw the flawed exercise that followed the brief.

The judicial protest was signed by Moviment Graffitti, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, Green House, Nature Trust Malta, Ramblers Association of Malta and the Archaeological Society of Malta.

The PA is currently considering an application proposing a high-rise development consisting of 166 apartments and a 250-room hotel on the site.

The development statement was presented on behalf of Porto Notos Ltd, a company owned by developer Charles Camilleri, known as il-Franċiż, and Pierre Lofaro.

The proposed project which includes a floor space of 90,000sq.m includes a high-rise building which will include residential units spread over 13 floors and a hotel which will rise to 15 floors.

A basement level will include a carpark with 370 spaces and 238 garages, lido facilities, a chapel and a commercial establishment.

In July last year, MaltaToday had reported that a group of investors fronted by Gozitan entrepreneur Joseph Portelli was in the process of buying the Jerma hotel site for a reported €90 million.

The objectives of the brief will have to be issued for a six-week consultation period.  Following that the PA will issue a draft policy which will also be issued for another public consultation.

The site is subject to an enforcement order aimed at removing the eye sore and the danger posed by the dilapidated hotel.

In June, the court gave the Montebello brothers 30 days to provide the Planning Authority with a method statement on how they intend to restore the site. But no such method statement was submitted by the expiry of this timeframe.