The db Group has denied a number of claims made by NGOs objecting to revised plans for the proposed City Centre project in St George’s Bay.

The City Centre project, planned for St George's Bay in St Julian's, will see db Group build a hotel, residential units and a shopping mall, among other things, on the site of what used to be the ITS campus. 

Original plans were downscaled following massive opposition by citizens and local councils to the project.  

In a joint statement, 10 organisations said on Tuesday that despite the company’s aggressive public relations campaign falsely claiming that the project had significantly changed, a thorough review of the revised plans revealed its monstrosity remained virtually the same.

The group said on Wednesday it was not true that demolition of part of the barracks had already started without any regulatory supervision before being halted by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage.

A portion of the barracks was demolished in line with the approved permit at that time, the approved SCH’s terms of reference and the method statements submitted by the project architects.

The portion in question did not form part of the Grade 2 scheduled area and was only an accretion. Furthermore, all works commenced following a formal clearance issued by the SCH and conducted under the supervision of an archaeological monitor.

It said it was not true that the SCH issued a stop notice related to Ħarq Ħamiem or the barracks. The stop notice related to the opening of a number of trial pits for the purpose of geological and geotechnical investigation. In fact, the SCH duly declared that it had no objection to further on-site works to proceed.

It was also not true that the development would have a deleterious effect upon the residential amenity of residences.

The maximum daily increase in shade created by the project on Pembroke would be 90 minutes during some weeks in December and on only some residences.

In June, the shading increased by 30 minutes a day, impacting only some residences. A detailed technical sun path study covering all seasons was available on the PA stream, it said.   

Regarding building heights and use, the proposed development was in line with the 2006 local plan, the height limitation adjustment policy for hotels as well as the FAR Policy, both approved in 2014.

No part of the site is within or adjacent to the Pembroke Natura 2000 site. 
A PA permit, the group said, was issued or withheld according to law, not opinions. 

It said it was not true that the visual integrity of St George’s Barracks would be highly endangered. This had already been compromised considerably by the accretions and adaptations to fit the former ITS. 

The Superintendent of Cultural Heritage had already issued a permit to dismantle and rebuild the barracks. Notwithstanding this permit, the group decided to retain and fully restore them. Excavation plans under the building were also scrapped. 

The group said it was not true that the SCH objected to the proposed pool or that its plans for the underground Cold War bunker were unclear. This was to retained in its totality, preserved and made accessible from the public open space.

Two independent character appraisals were carried out and they formed part of the comprehensive EIA assessment. A detailed assessment was also initially carried out to assess the barracks buildings. Subsequently, a detailed Military Barracks Heritage Report was also carried out by the project architects.

The group said detailed studies and conclusions by geologists and geotechnical engineers Peter Gatt and Adrian Mifsud proved he project poses no threat to Ħarq Ħamiem because 24m of rock separate it from it.

In addition, only 0.5% of the project buildings overlapped the cave and no excavation works would be conducted without the necessary archaeological and geotechnical monitoring.

As for the proposed publicly-funded tunnel, the group said this would serve residents, businesses and visitors to the area. 

The NGO’s were twisting facts when they claimed that the Planning Authority held the db Group liable for damages for putting the project on the market, it said. 

“We were the ones who first filed a judicial letter holding the PA responsible for damages sustained as a result of Court of Appeal ruling in July 2019. The Planning Authority subsequently filed a reply to this judicial letter as one would expect in such circumstances in order to rebut our claim for damages,” it said.

Regarding other environmental considerations, all proposed plans would be assessed by the various entities and regulating bodies during the consultation period. 

The group reiterated that the latest version of the project submitted in April reflected a substantial downscale and was an improvement on any former studies.

It said technical and more detailed submissions would be filed with the authorities at the appropriate time.