PA postpones Saqqajja flats decision amid ground stability concerns

The Planning Authority board has postponed a decision on a controversial development of 35 new flats beneath Mdina’s bastions, saying members need a fuller picture of the proposal before proceeding.

The board chairman, Emanuel Camilleri, said outstanding matters raised by objectors still needed to be addressed, including studies concerning the stability of the ground where the development is proposed.

No new hearing date has been announced, although the application is expected to return for discussion in the coming days.

The deferral follows a case officer’s recommendation to approve the project by Mdina Property Ltd, represented by clubbing entrepreneur Dominic Micallef, with former minister Jesmond Mugliett as architect.

The scheme would replace the former Tattingers nightclub and neighbouring buildings on Saqqajja Hill with a stepped residential complex reaching fifth-floor level, above two basement parking floors.

Plans include 35 flats, a residents’ gym and spa, a small office, 65 parking spaces and a service culvert beneath Triq tal-Infetti. Villa San Clemente would be restored as one of the homes.

The case officer had recommended granting permission while withholding its executable version pending approval of an excavation Works Method Statement incorporating a geotechnical report.

Four neighbouring property owners, represented by architect Hermann Bonnici, challenged that sequence, arguing that excavation feasibility should be established before the board decides.

Their objection raised possible settlement, subsidence and lateral ground movement from disturbing clay strata, noting that their properties lie uphill from the proposed works.

Mdina Local Council separately requested a specialist assessment of excavation and building loads on the protected railway tunnel.

The officer’s report also acknowledged major negative visual impacts from a key approach to the site, but considered the effects acceptable.

The residential proposal follows the court’s annulment of an earlier permit for an 81-room hotel at the same location because the local plan did not allow a new hotel.