Ten organisations have submitted a detailed objection to the Planning Authority (PA) in connection with the db Group project on the former ITS site.

A summarised version of the objection has been placed on an online form and can be submitted to the PA by the public.

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 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.

If approved, the tower and the hotel would engulf surrounding localities and their residents under massive structures as well as further push Paceville towards residential areas. The project also remained as damaging to the surrounding natural environment as it was before the revised plans.

In their objection, the organisations highlight a number of planning policies being breached by the proposed plan. They state that the exaggerated massing, volume and height of the proposed development are out of context.

The proposed hotel tower - 64m high - and the residential tower - 112.25m tall – by no means respected the topography and surrounding context. The shadowing cast by the superstructures would also have a deleterious effect upon the residences in the affected area, they claimed.

They also underlined the detrimental impact on cultural heritage. The visual integrity of the Grade 2 scheduled St George’s Barracks was highly endangered and no “character appraisal” of the context was carried out.

Extensive and extremely risky rock-cutting would take place near the Grade 1 scheduled cave system of Ħarq Ħamiem, and within the 'buffer/constraint zone' of the same cave system.

They said there was no indication of whether studies on its geological structure and vulnerability had been undertaken, and if so, on what data were they based. It was also unclear what would happen to the Cold War bunker that was discovered through research carried out by the objectors. From the drawings provided, it was impossible to deduce to what extent the bunker was being retained and which elements would be lost, the objectors said.

They said a major concern related to the excessive amount of traffic, noise and pollution the development would generate in the area. There were no updated traffic impact assessments providing a holistic overview as to whether the current road infrastructure was sufficient to contain the increased traffic generated by the proposed project.

The application did not include the infamous tunnel being touted by the db Group as the solution to the traffic generated by the project, they claimed.

Moreover, a tunnel which was not funded by the developer was in breach of the floor to area ratio policy which required applicants to contribute to the costs of measures implemented to accommodate the burdens and inconveniences generated by the development.

The objectors outlined several other concerns, such as the breaches of local plan policies and a number of environmental considerations, including the excessive generation of inert waste and the lack of updated environmental and social impact assessments.

The objectors also disagreed with “these so-called mitigating measures” proposed by the applicant and considered them another excuse for taking over more public land under the pretence of making amends.

Mitigation measures included the decking of a rocky public beach designated as a Natura 2000 site and a surface car park for residents on a plot of land beyond the site conceded to the applicant.

The objectors requested a physical hearing by the PA board, since a virtual online hearing was no substitute for a physical one where the people ccould voice their opinion in line with their right to participate fully in the decision-making process.

The statement was signed by the Bicycle Advocacy Group;  BirdLife Malta; Din l-Art Ħelwa; Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar; Friends of the Earth Malta; Moviment Graffitti; Nature Trust Malta; Sustainable Built Environment Malta; The Archaeological Society of Malta; and Żminijietna – Voice of the Left.