Barter proposed for St George’s Park expropriations in Paceville masterplan

The Planning Authority has reportedly offered the owners of St George's Park to pay expropriations with more floor space instead of monetary compensation.

The St George’s Park project includes a 300-bed hotel, part of which will have to make way for a new public plaza
The St George’s Park project includes a 300-bed hotel, part of which will have to make way for a new public plaza

The owners of St George’s Park – one of the nine sites identified for high-rise development in the Paceville masterplan – are claiming that the Planning Authority has proposed to “pay” for expropriations on their site by granting them more floor space, while saying that no funds have been allocated for land expropriations on their site.

This could see the proposed high-rise on the St George’s Park site being granted an increase in the gross developable floor space, than would apply with normal criteria.

The claim is made in a report presented to parliament’s environment and planning committee by the owners of St George’s Park Co Ltd, which include the Testaferrata Moroni Viani family, which described the masterplan as “discriminatory” towards them and favouring the Mercury House development.

Speaking to MaltaToday, the owners clarified the issue of adjustments to the number of floors was raised during a meeting called by the Planning Authority after the Masterplan was published in which they objected to the way development on their site was limited to offices. 

“In reply to our objection we were told that if we opted for mixed use development (like other developments like Mercury House) we would have had to reduce the number of floors from those offered in the masterplan.”

They were also told that once the masterplan comes in place any development application in the area would have to conform to its parameters which include the creation of the new plaza on their private land. 

The site includes a 300-bed hotel, which will have to make way for a new public plaza originally proposed around Mercury House in a development brief issued in 2005 but shifted by the new masterplan to St George’s Park. 

Although the master plan allocated €151 million for so-called “appropriations” the amount remains the same for both Option 2, which does not include the plaza in St George’s Park and Option 3, the preferred option which includes the new plaza.

Mott MacDonald – the consultants commissioned by the PA to draft the masterplan – were previously engaged as consultants to the Mercury House developers.

This revelation has led the government to demand a review of the plan after critics protested the apparent conflict of interest.

The St George’s Park owners claim that the enlarged Paceville Plaza as envisaged in the Masterplan “amputates” their site, which presently includes a 300-bed hotel and various third party businesses and residences.

They also claim that the masterplan ignores previous commitments (included in the tender for Mercury House) to “create a major public plaza in the area surrounding Mercury House so as to create a high quality public space for the whole of Paceville.”

Instead the masterplan proposes to “appropriate” an area of a similar size in St Georges Park for the same purpose.

Masterplan’s expropriation

The plan justifies the choice by saying that this is will create a long view to the listed Spinola Entrenchment Archway which would provide an impressive backdrop to the plaza with the sea visible beyond the historic gate. But the St George’s Park owners claim that they were not given the same treatment given to Mercury House, which will enjoy straight-line views. 

Moreover they point out that since the St George’s Park site lies on a higher terrain than the rest of Paceville, it will be impossible to achieve the views promised by the masterplan.

Noting that the Mercury House site belongs to “Mott Macdonald’s clients” the owners of St George’s Park said that the switch in the location of the Paceville Plaza “can hardly be viewed as anything short of self-serving.”

The owners have accused the consultants of favouring the Mercury House site noting that while the curved skyline model envisaged by the masterplan implies that the tallest building will be at St George’s Park, they still allocated the tallest building (35 storeys) to Mercury Houses.

The report also notes other contradictions in the masterplan, like avoiding tall buildings on the coast while still proposing three towers in the Cresta Quay area.

According to the masterplan, St George’s Park site will see a decrease in the area allocated for hotel development (-47,373 square metres) and an increase in office space (+120,008 square metres) and residential development (+46,329 square metres). 

The site’s developable floor space will nearly double in size from the current 127,949 square metres to 233,000, thus becoming the second largest site after Portomaso. Three tall buildings rising to a maximum of 34 floors are envisaged on this site.

The tallest towers on the site will be located adjacent to Paceville Plaza. According to the report this not only fits within the overall Paceville skyline strategy, but also provides a marker for the centre of Paceville – adjacent to the plaza. Building heights then step down towards the east and north. 

Mercury House, which will host Paceville’s highest skyscraper (around 35 floors), would see its total floor space area increase from just 11,081 square metres to 87,000, an increase of 685%. The development will require 2,442 parking spaces.

Party proposals

The owners also acknowledged that back in August 2015 they had presented their plans for three over 40-storey high rises in the area in a meeting they had with the Prime Minister, after an inconclusive meeting with the Planning Authority.

They also made a similar presentation to Opposition leader Simon Busuttil and Alternattiva Demokratika chairperson Arnold Cassola.

No commitments were made in these meetings according to the developers. The plans as proposed in 2015 had a greater developable floor space than proposed in the masterplan. The owners insist that as proposed in the masterplan the project will not be feasible as their aim is not simply to sell apartments but to keep the various components of the high rise development under a single ownership.