Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535025
Patrick Calleja is president of Din l-Art Helwa Patrick Calleja maltatoday | SUNDAY • 4 MAY 2025 4 OPINION The scheming authority THE Planning Authority has just issued for public consultation a Partial Local Plan Review for the Villa Rosa site in Paceville, calling it a "significant mile- stone" for future development in this part of Malta. The purpose of a local plan is to establish a framework that balances development with the preservation of the environment, public space and urban character. The re- vised local plan objectives for the Villa Rosa site are, however, derived entirely from the monstrous project proposed and drawn up by the developer and not, as it should be, the other way around— any development proposals should be de- fined and constrained by the previously approved local plans. The notion that the local plan has been dictated by the developer's proposal is of great concern. The Planning Authority's approach does seem to suggest that the local plan is being reconfigured to fit the developer's desires. In this recent consul- tation request, there were clearly no stud- ies conducted by the PA to support the proposed objectives. Reading through the objectives for the masterplan of the area and knowing what has already been proposed would be hi- larious if it was not so deeply depressing. The project incorporates two 22-storey towers and another 39-storey tower block together with thousands of square me- tres for retail, catering, office and other commercial entities stretching from the historic Villa Rosa at the top of the valley down to St George's Bay. One objective of this masterplan is to "… protect the environmentally sensitive ar- eas, buildings and features… particularly the Grade 1 Villa Rosa" and another ob- jective is to "…ensure that development does not create unacceptable impacts on the valley, St George's Bay sunbathing and swimming area." How this proposed monstrous and intrusive development is to align with these noble masterplan objectives is beyond belief. It makes a mockery of the entire planning process and undermines the little public trust, if any, left. The project not only disrespects the en- vironmental and aesthetic significance of the site but also raises doubts about the PA's commitment to respecting and preserving Malta's cultural built heritage. Villa Rosa is not simply a piece of real estate; it is a symbol of the area's histo- ry and character; a rare 1920's Art Nou- veau architectural masterpiece by An- drea Vassallo that stands proudly at the top of the valley. It is the only building in the area that commands attention for the right reasons. Ironically, the villa has even sacrificed its name to the local plan. This blatant neglect underscores the PA's prioritisation of developers' interests over the more critical and essential cultural, aesthetic and environmental context that should in fact influence planning deci- sions. In this farcical consultation the PA re- sponded to many of the first phase public submissions stating that they had alleg- edly received over 4,200 submissions in support of the original review objectives. They even allege that some stakeholders also requested a review of the boundary to incorporate additional land. Judging from the timing of the developer's pub- lic announcement of the number of ap- proving submissions received by the PA, almost immediately after the first phase of the consultation was closed and before any official reports were published by the PA, it seems that the process was un- ethically manipulated and was therefore contaminated. This matter is serious and should be investigated. It is also very hypocritical of the Plan- ning Authority to go on quoting how many positive responses they received when they never quote the number of objections that they receive. They now even have a tick box on their portal to stop viewing the representations made by the public on development applications. The PA always chooses to overlook even very significant public objections raised against similar large-scale developments. A notable case was the recently approved Comino hotel and bungalow project. There were over 13,500 objections to the proposed Comino development. The Planning Board that recently decided this application never even considered this fact or the fact that the Għajnsielem lo- cal council, representing around 3,000 constituents on the same Planning Board, were going to vote against the proposed development. This selective acknowledg- ment of feedback raises serious questions about the impartiality and integrity of the Planning Authority, revealing a concern- ing hypocrisy that prioritises the interests of developers over community needs and even established policies. The PA's con- sultation document pays only lip service to community engagement and transpar- ency. The core issue lies in the PA's evi- dent bias towards accommodating devel- opers' demands. The local plan should serve as a guide to promote the community's interests, yet it is fast morphing into a document that caters to the whims of developers, intent only on maximising their profits. The concerns surrounding the Villa Rosa pro- ject are symptomatic of a pressing issue facing Malta—general lack of strategic vi- sion and holistic planning. It is with this notion in mind that I am compelled to emphasise that any sugges- tions for a review of all the local plans should be approached with critical scru- tiny. One thing is certain; we are all going to bear the consequences of such devel- opments. Villa Rosa site (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)