In U-turn, Pembroke council will vote against extension of db tower extension

The Pembroke Local Council has announced it will vote against db Group's controversial proposal to add extra storeys to its residential towers, reversing its previous support for the development.

"The local council respects the residents' wishes and therefore we will be voting against the proposed development," Mayor Kaylon Zammit said in a council meeting on Wednesday evening.

This comes after the Planning Authority was set to approve the addition of seven and six floors to the already approved db Group towers, which, if endorsed, will rise to 25 and 23 floors respectively. A planning authority was expected earlier today but was suspended due to the absence of eNGOs.

Nearly 400 people had objected to the additional floors.

Studies submitted in the past months indicate that the towers will cast shadows on neighbouring residences in Pembroke between 7am and noon in December, and between 7am and 10am in September.

At the centre of the dispute is a contract signed between Pembroke Local Council and DB Group, in which the council reportedly agreed not to object to the extension of the controversial City Centre Project in exchange for funding a civic centre.

In August, Pembroke residents presented a petition to the local council expressing their fury at the agreement reached with DB Group. "In light of these developments, the residents have expressed that they no longer have confidence in any member of the current Local Council to represent them on the Planning Board during the hearing of application PA 3218/25," the residents had said.

READ ALSO | Pembroke residents choke under db Group’s rising towers

Zammit called the emergency meeting ahead of the planning board set to discuss the permit on Thursday.

He defended the original agreement, explaining that "the investment that we were bringing as a council to the locality, I believed in it and I still believe in it to this day."

The mayor explained that the civic centre funding "was the only way we could compensate the residents, obviously given the inconvenience that the development brought."

However, he acknowledged on Wednesday evening that whilst they still believed in the investment the development could bring to the locality, they had an obligation to listen to their constituents.

"This doesn't mean that we don't believe in the agreement we brought forward, but as a local council, I think we have the obligation to respect the wishes of our residents," he explained.

The meeting was called to allow the council to take a formal vote on their position ahead of Thursday's planning board discussion on the permit application. Zammit emphasised that the council continued to view the development as having important elements, but resident opposition had forced them to reconsider their stance.

"Obviously, the residents spoke and expressed their opinions. The local council must respect the residents' wishes," Zammit told the meeting as it concluded, and a vote was taken.