Paceville’s quaint townhouse row faces Westin expansion

The Westin Dragonara hotel wants the Planning Authority to change zoning rules in Paceville, and extend the ‘entertainment priority area’ to its parking area behind the old boundary wall on Triq id-Dragonara facing the coastline.

A substantial part of the 8,800sq.m site had been zoned for a four-storey residential development in the 2006 local plan.

But in 2021, the PA re-zoned the Westin’s parking area for mixed-use development: 33% for offices, 55% for a hotel, and 10% for residential use, and just 2% for food and beverage establishments.

That zoning application also foresaw an extension of the protected area immediately abutting the coastline, with a transitional zone for low-key leisure uses.

But in their latest request, the Westin wants to re-designate the area allocated for office, residential and hotel development into an “entertainment priority area” – that is, extending Paceville’s entertainment hub to the residential area along part of Triq Dragonara, Triq il-Wilga and Triq il-Knisja. A number of protected townhouses are located immediately opposite the proposed development.

Such a designation would permit a wider range of allowable uses: dwellings, restaurants, bars, hostels, retail, supermarkets, dance halls, clubs and amusement arcades. Offices would be limited to small-scale developments.

The application does not request a change in the height limitation prevailing in the area.

Peninsula Holdings, whose directors include four major business groups – namely Paul and Carmel Polidano, Mark and Francis Portelli, Charles and Gianluca Borg, and Bernard and Anthony Gauci, declared full ownership of the site.

During the 2021 discussions at the PA on the rezoning, Peninsula’s architect declared that the company’s intention was to develop the site “holistically” with the Westin Dragonara, so as to have more flexibility in the design of the full development application.

Residents living along Triq id-Dragonara had expressed concern that the mixed-use development would worsen “social misbehaviour and noise pollution” in the area. They also insisted that any development in the area should not exceed the height of the existing boundary wall.