Developers push for added floor in contested Xagħra project

Karkanja Ltd, the developers behind a major mixed use complex in Xagħra, which objectors describe as “overbearing” and “incongruous” with its surroundings, defended their pending application to add five residential units on a receded floor in one of three buildings that form part of a site that’s already received planning approval.

The project consists of three blocks featuring basement garages, apartments, commercial outlets, and a 14-room guesthouse. Since 2004, when the site was merely a dumping yard, the developers have filed 12 planning applications, each gradually increasing the scale and massing of the project.

All of those applications were approved, except for one version of the project, which sought to build a 51-room hotel. The developers withdrew the application after negative public feedback.

Contacted by The Shift, the developers highlighted the stone finishing to be applied to the facade and dismissed objectors’ concerns about how the 4,000 sqm site will impact nearby heritage sites in an area intended to be a small urban settlement.

“Although any development will have an impact on its surroundings, as a policy, our company builds all of its developments in Gozo using traditional stone facades, irrespective of whether it’s in sensitive UCA sites or not,” the company told The Shift.

“The same is being applied here, including internal road facades, which will boost the typical Gozitan urban characteristics of the area. This project is also respecting the highest energy efficient / water reuse requirements on the islands,” the company added.

The designs below show how the project evolved over the past three planning applications, with coloured lines marking new additions made with each application.

All applications shown below were approved except for the last one, PA/1721/26, “to construct five residential units at receded floor level”, which is still awaiting a recommendation from a Planning Authority (PA) case officer.

When asked why it adopted this practice instead of filing one comprehensive planning application, the company’s spokesperson said that all such major projects “are split into different phases” and that “several applications were required because many policies changed since 2004”.

As for heritage concerns highlighted by objectors, who cited the proximity of the historical Nazzarenu Church and a nearby WWII shelter as reasons for their objection, the company said that “our proposed site lies well beyond the WWII shelter, separated from Nazzarenu Church by intervening buildings and a pjazza (square).”

“From public viewpoints, our site sits significantly below key areas like the Nazzarenu square, rendering only the top two floors visible. Once the existing single storey, third party building between the square and our site matches the predominant height, our development will vanish entirely from view in that zone,” the company added.

Residents’ objections stressed that the site is located just 27 metres away from the Church, which is of such architectural and historic value that it is included in the National Inventory of the Cultural Property of the Maltese Islands.

“Most of the site falls within the buffer zone of an Emergency Conservation Order due to the presence of a World War II shelter,” the objection states, further noting that the local plans for the area have a height limitation of three floors and three courses.

The Ramblers’ Association of Malta also filed a separate objection, arguing that adding a receded floor to the development would contravene planning policy intended to protect cultural heritage from “incompatible” development. The NGO also noted the absence of a streetscape analysis, which would provide an adequate assessment of how the project will impact its surroundings.

“It is a matter of record that a request for increased floor height on this specific site was rejected under a previous application. The Planning Authority has already established that an increase in height here is unacceptable. Re-applying for the same increase under a new application number is a waste of administrative resources and ignores the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage’s previous expert recommendation,” the NGO added.