PA’s case officer claims Dingli Cliffs hotel ‘more rural’ than disused building

A Planning Authority case officers has described a brand new hotel at the site of the disused Pulvich explosives factory at Dingli Cliffs, as “far more rural” than the existing structures.

The 14-room hotel, built in ten separate blocks with a communal 96sq.m pool area, has been recommended for approval despite the strong objections of the Dingli local council, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, and over 500 individual objections.

The area is outside development zones.

The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage waned that the intensification of development in the area would inevitably result in the formalisation of what is “significant” rural and cultural landscape, dubbing it “unacceptable in principle”, calling instead for the rehabilitation of the site.

An internal PA advisory panel on agricultural issues objected to the development, saying any reuse of the explosives factory for non-agricultural purposes, should not be allowed.

The Dingli council insisted that once the factory is no longer required, the land should be returned to nature and reinstated to its original state.

The development could be approved in terms of the controversial rural policy approved in 2014, which permits the change-of-use for farm buildings if this results in an environmental improvement.

The Environment and Resources Authority however changed its stance on the development: originally objecting to the change of use, it subsequently accepted a downscaled version, which was also endorsed by the Malta Tourism Authority.

The development will take place in what is an Area of Ecological Importance and a Natura 2000 site within an Area of High Landscape Value. The site also lies in an area in which the local plan only allows buildings, structures and uses essential to the needs of agriculture can be permitted.

Despite policies which preclude commercial developments in a highly sensitive area, the case officer called for approval, effectively committing the site for tourism development by deeming the hotel an improvement to the existing dilapidated building, both visually and environmentally. “The proposal would be giving a use to an otherwise abandoned and neglected building, while the proposed changes to what is already existing on site aid in mitigating the impact of the development and integrating it further with its surroundings.”

The case officer also said the hotel was “far more rural” than the existing abandoned factory, which however attracts no traffic or activity to the otherwise pristine area.

But the case officer contends that current structures with unruly blank walls will be removed, and external concrete ground coverings will be adjusted to complement the rural setting.

The case officer proposed a condition to preclude the sale of hotel rooms as individual residential units, ensuring the complex operates as one functional unit and not sold or transferred separately.

The proposal is made by Sunroute Hotels, a company owned by Adrian Sant, Christopher Sant, Maria Sant and Sarah Sant, which currently owns the Santana Hotel in St Paul’s Bay. Only a year ago Infrastructure Malta had upgraded the rural road leading to the new hotel.