Council will vote against Dingli hotel, Graffitti hits out at planning travesty

Moviment Graffitti has described the recommended approval of an application to convert a disused explosives factory in Dingli into ten bungalows, as another planning travesty.

The Planning Authority is set to decide on the controversial development this Thursday, which the NGO said will see more unspoilt land taken up for the construction of dwellings complete with a pool, car park and management block.

“This application is a shameless attempt to circumvent constraints on ODZ development. If approved, this may well open the door to similar applications in other areas of Malta,” the NGO said.

“The land in question lies within a Special Area of Conservation due to the high ecological value of the cliff habitat, and adjacent to two Special Protection Areas for the conservation of breeding seabirds which would be impacted by light pollution. It is also a scheduled Area of Ecological Importance and Area of High Landscape Value.”

The group also asked whether the site’s ODZ designation stands for something in view of developers’ constant and persistent tactics to undermine the protection granted to the site by the ODZ status.

“The original permit for the factory even included an explicit condition which states that the premises are not to be used or furnished as holiday flats by tourists. The permit was granted on the basis that the hazardous nature of the factory’s production required a location away from residential areas.”

Moviment Graffitti also highlighted what it said was the devious manner in which Infrastructure Malta connected the water supply to the disused factory ahead of the planning application, noting that the previous applications in 2017 were rejected because there were no such services the site.

“Infrastructure Malta has funnelled public funds to service a private development, ensuring that the developers find the fewer obstacles possible in their bid to commercialise an unspoilt area. The applicant herself, Maria Sant, declared in the application that no trenching was required to connect the development to the water distribution network. This amounts to a written confirmation that IM has used public funds to get private developments greenlighted,” the NGO said.

In addition, a magisterial inquiry on misuse of EU funds has been ordered by Magistrate Josette Demicoli, who concluded that there is the possibility of a criminal act being committed.

The inquiry is investigating the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for EU funds Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, the Dingli Local Council, and other government entities on the misuse of EU funds used to build a high rubble wall in the road leading to the proposed development.

“Not only did the PA never intervene to halt works, but the board members voting in favour of the development risk becoming accomplices in a criminal act,” the group said.

The NGO said the construction process would see heavy vehicles passing through narrow country lanes, destroying the serenity of the area, while the increased traffic from tourists and service vehicles will undoubtedly pose a threat to the area's ecological and landscape value, rendering any legal provisions taken to preserve the area useless.

Moviment Graffitti also criticised the Environment and Resources Authority, who had first objected to the development but then changed its mind after the presentation of fresh plans.

“The ERA’s U-turn is clear for everyone to see. The authority first stated that it "does not support the principle that [prior] development should serve as a pretext for committing sites to further development”.

The group also highlighted how the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage stated in no unclear terms that the "intensification of development would inevitably result in the formalisation of this significant rural and cultural landscape Outside Development Zone", recommending the demolition and rehabilitation of the site.

The Dingli Local Council has also objected to the development.

Moviment Graffitti said that this application should be rejected and calls for an end to the constant appeasing of developers hellbent on “turning the countryside into their personal cash machine,” with the use of public funds as in this case.

Council will vote against Dingli hotel

Dingli’ s explosives factory should be demolished and returned to nature, says local council

On the eve of the Planning Authority board’s decision on a hotel proposed instead of a former explosives factory, the Labour-led Dingli local council has announced it will vote against the project.

The project is being proposed by Sunroute Company Ltd, which operates the Hotel Santana in Qawra, whose shareholders are the four children of renowned businessman Albert Sant of JB Stores Ltd.

The DIngli council contends that since the disused explosives factory at Dingli cliffs had to be located outside development zones because of safety issues but i no longer required, the said land is to be “returned to nature, with the area reinstated to its original state as deemed appropriate for such an important and protected site”.

The PA board meets to discuss the controversial application on Thursday.

The proposed 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 Environment and Resources Authority however changed its stance on the development: originally objecting to the change of use of the building when the development was proposed by Dirk Hili’s La Toc Ltd, it subsequently accepted a downscaled version proposed by Sunroute Ltd, which was also endorsed by the Malta Tourism Authority.

While the development is limited to the footprint of the existing complex, approval of the application will create a new ‘tourism’ commitment on the site, possibly triggering further development in the future.

In fact in its original objection ERA had warned that in the future it would be difficult to contain the development within the committed area as the project would create a demand for ancillary development to support the intensified use such as “utility services and drainage systems, and longer-term development pressures to extend the established development.”

On its part the Dingli council warned that the proposal will commercialize an otherwise un-spoilt area and will generate a significant amount of activity in an otherwise completely quiet and rural area.

The council was particularly irked by the ERA’s approval of the development, noting that its assessment left much to be desired for a site with such a high ecological value and its failure to assess the negative effect that the lighting emitted from the proposed development will cause on the habitats of the fauna in this Natura 2000 site. “ERA did not deem fit to mention at least one sentence on the issue of light pollution in such a sensitive site.”

The case officer recommending the hotel’s approval described the proposed hotel as “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.