Objectors want physical Planning Authority hearing on DB Group’s City Centre

NGOs review of DB’s changes to City Centre project claims project is ‘virtually the same’ despite aggressive public relations campaign

Artist's impression of how the project will look
Artist's impression of how the project will look

Ten organisations have submitted a detailed objection to the Planning Authority in connection with the DB Group’s City Centre project at St George’s Bay.

The groups said that despite the company’s aggressive public relations campaign, a thorough review of the revised plans reveal that the project remains virtually the same. “If approved, the tower and the hotel would engulf surrounding localities and their residents under massive structures as well as further push Paceville towards residential areas. The project also remains as damaging to the surrounding natural environment as it was before the revised plans,” the groups said.

The DB Group has said it has reduced the massing and scale of its high-rise tower and neighbouring Hard Rock hotel.

The NGOs have highlighted a number of planning policies breached by the proposed plan for the ex-ITS site. “The exaggerated massing, volume and height of the proposed development are out of context. It highlighted that the proposed hotel tower – 64m high – and the residential tower – 112.25m tall – by no means respect the topography and surrounding context,” the groups said, adding that the shadowing from the building will have a deleterious effect on residences.

“Moreover, the objectors underline the detrimental impact on cultural heritage. The visual integrity of the Grade 2 Scheduled St George’s Barracks is highly endangered and no “Character Appraisal” of the context was carried out (in breach of Circular 3/20). Extensive and extremely risky rock-cutting will take place near the Grade 1 scheduled cave system of Ħarq Ħamiem, and within the ‘Buffer/Constraint Zone’ of the same cave system,” the group said.

The NGOs said there is no indication of whether the studies on its geological structure and vulnerability have been undertaken, and if so, on what data these studies were based on. It said that it was also unclear what would happen to the Cold War bunker discovered through research carried out.

“A major concern relates to the excessive amount of traffic, noise and pollution the development will generate in the area. There are no updated Traffic Impact Assessments providing a holistic overview as to whether the current road infrastructure is sufficient to contain the increased traffic generated by the proposed project.”

The group warned the application did not include “the infamous tunnel” being touted by the DB Group as the solution to the traffic generated by the project. “Moreover, a tunnel which is not funded by the developer is in breach of the Floor to Area Ratio policy; this policy requires applicants to contribute to the costs of measures implemented to accommodate the burdens and inconveniences generated by the development.”

Other concerns include breaches of Local Plan policies and a number of environmental considerations, including the excessive generation of inert waste and the lack of updated Environmental and Social Impact Assessments.

The objectors also disagree with these so-called “mitigating” measures proposed by DB, considering them merely an excuse to take over more public land under the pretence of making amends. Mitigation measures include the decking of a rocky public beach designated as a Natura 2000 site and a surface car park for residents on a plot of land beyond the site conceded to the applicant.

The groups said they had requested a physical hearing by the Planning Authority board, “since a virtual online hearing is no substitute for a physical hearing where the people can voice their opinion in line with their right to participate fully in the decision-making process.”