DB group withdraws separate application to excavate ITS site

The DB Group has withdrawn a controversial application for the excavation of the ITS site in Pembroke, which was presented separately from another application for the development of a 31-storey high-rise development.

The application, which was withdrawn on 19 May, foresaw the excavation of the site in “preparation to City Centre Development” which is the subject of a “separate application”.

In a sop to public opinion, the application was withdrawn just a week before the commencement of a public consultation by the Planning Authority on the high-rise development, which will start today.

The application, shot down by a record 3,500 objections, had been described by the Local Councils Association as a “tactic by the developer to create a commitment on the site so one decision leads to the next”.

The LCA said this was also a way of ensuring that objectors to the excavation would not be able to object to the project in its entirety. “We understand that if the excavation works are approved the site will not be left as a massive hole.”

The LCA is also opposed to DB’s City Centre project in its entirety, describing it as one which will “harm the quality of life of thousands of families”.

The DB Group recently changed plans, removing seven storeys – a 20m reduction – from its proposed tower, which studies say will cast a long shadow over Pembroke’s residential homes in the winter months.

The change in plans come in the wake of a report by the Auditor General which found irregularities in the transfer of the former ITS land to the group, owned by hotelier Silvio Debono.

According to the latest plans the originally proposed 38-storey tower will now go down to 31 storeys. The nearby hotel will retain the same height of 17 floors.

The changes are not expected to substantially reduce the project’s massive visual impact, least of all to placate anger at the project from residents, the Labour-led Pembroke council, and the LCA,

The permit was revoked by the law courts after a Planning Authority board member involved in the real estate business was revealed to have a conflict of interest when voting for the project.

The NAO also cast doubts on the “regularity” of the tender issued by Projects Malta five years ago. Projects Malta had failed to obtain authorisation from the Contracts Department before issuing a request for proposals in November 2015 for the design, build and operation of the mixed tourism and leisure development.

The DB Group was the only bidder for the project.

The NAO launched its investigation in March 2017 after the controversial land concession was finalised at a value of €56 million. The Government Property Department was absent from the process that led to the disposal of the site, despite being the government entity mandated to dispose of public land.

Projects Malta, a government entity set up after the 2013 election and entrusted to then minister Konrad Mizzi, assumed control over the process in the GPD’s stead.

Projects Malta was responsible for government’s major projects, including the multi-million euro hospitals concession awarded to Vitals Global Healthcare.

The NAO also expressed major concerns with respect to the negotiation committee that engaged in talks with the company after it was selected as the preferred bidder. “No records of negotiations were made available, which constrained the NAO from establishing a comprehensive understanding of the negotiation process and grossly detracted from the expected level of governance,” the audit office said.

On its part the DB Group insisted that the report had found it “in the clear” and that “the price paid by DB San Gorg Property Ltd was consonant to the market valuation carried by the Auditor General as part of its terms of reference.”

The Group also said that “no allegations of whatsoever nature are levelled against the Group in its dealings with the Government appointed negotiation team.”

It welcomed the publication of the report, “as it brings to an end the various unfounded and at times malicious allegations against the Group regarding the price it paid for the concession of the land in question.”