Planning authority defers DB towers extension decision by another three weeks

In yet another delay to the seemingly interminable saga of DB Group’s towers in Pembroke, the Planning Authority (PA) postponed its decision about whether to approve an application that would add an extra 13 floors to the group’s massive project.

In a hearing held earlier today, the PA’s board decided to defer the decision due to the submission of updated impact assessment documents by the applicant, with the board’s chair stating that the deferral was agreed upon to give the public more time to review these updates.

The public has been vociferously opposed to DB Group’s massive project since it was first proposed nearly a decade ago, with the group being forced to downsize its original plans after immense public pressure.

Eight years after plans were downsized, which only occurred after a lengthy appeals process crowdfunded by NGOs who sought to block it entirely, DB Group presented a fresh PA application to add 7 and 6 additional floors to its two towers.

During the first hearing a few weeks ago, the board’s chair halted the meeting after announcing that NGO representative Romano Cassar was not present.

According to architect Darren Sciberras, who filed the latest application on behalf of the group, the project’s “landmark and innovative design” respects the historical and residential context that surrounds it, noting that this latest addition would only change the height of the towers without changing the original site plans.

During a 20-minute presentation, Sciberras delved into detail about the project, which will reach a height as tall as Portomaso Tower in nearby Paceville and is set to house a total of over 250 apartments and a  5 star hotel with a total of 386 rooms.

After the applicant’s architect finished his presentation, a representative of the PA’s directorate stated that the proposed additions to DB’s mega project are in line with current policy and that there were no objections from relevant authorities who were consulted on the project.

The directorate’s representative, Roderick Livori, also noted that updated impact assessments were submitted by the applicant, specifically referencing a social impact assessment which determined that 60% of the residents in the surrounding neighbourhood disagreed with the approval of the project.

Two objectors also spoke up during today’s hearing – architect Peter Valentino on behalf of Swieqi’s local council, and Suzanne Zahra on behalf of Pembroke’s residents group.

Arguing that a representation filed by Swieqi’s local council was “completely ignored”, Valentino’s intervention during the meeting centred around a promised road network upgrade which was originally meant to alleviate the increased traffic which DB’s towers will inevitably generate.

This road network upgrade, which was originally part of the conditions that Transport Malta imposed on the project’s approval, was subject to a separate planning application that was later withdrawn by Infrastructure Malta. A new application has now been filed and is currently undergoing screening.

In a heated exchange during an otherwise sedate hour long hearing, Pembroke resident Suzanne Zahra accused the board of twisting policy to suit the needs of major developers, with board chair Manuel Camilleri challenging Zahra to present evidence of her accusations to the board and repeatedly asking her to identify which policies are being breached by the proposal they were discussing.

“We’ve been fighting the height of this development for years,” Zahra charged, reminding the board that the development in question had attracted thousands of objections at every stage of the planning process.

During its deliberations before deciding to kick the can down the road for another three weeks, one of the board’s members pointedly asked the applicant’s architect about how the developers could justify adding more floors to a project that’s already elicited so many objections as it currently stands.

The architect, Darren Sciberras, repeatedly insisted that the developer had every right to add more floors but chose instead to reduce the scale of the project, adding that the development is in line with policy and claiming that the applicant has “no interest” in adding any more floors than what is being proposed.