American University of Malta campus extension appeal postponed

A planning appeals board postponed the first sitting of the case concerning the American University of Malta after the chairman flagged a potential conflict of interest.

The hearing was deferred to 1 October, after the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal chairperson, Joseph Borg declared that he was board secretary of the PA board, which refused the application for AUM’s Bormla campus.

The project pushed by Sadeen Group involves the development of other areas on the Bormla campus that was transferred to the company by parliamentary resolution.

Sadeen’s architect Edwin Mintoff asked to consult his client regarding whether the chairman should recuse himself or not.

The appeal was presented last January by Sadeen, the Jordanian construction and hospitality company, which owns AUM. The plans were originally rejected by the PA in November last year amid protests by Bormla and Isla residents.

More than 40 residents also registered online to follow the tribunal’s hearing but the sitting barely lasted more than a few minutes.

Meanwhile, resident group Azzjoni Tuna Artna Lura held a symbolic action on Thursday in one of the public spaces to be impacted by the proposed development.

The residents called on the EPRT to confirm the refusal of the proposed development.

Together with other NGOs, Azzjoni Tuna Artna Lura raised €6,000 in funds within less than a week to fight the appeal.

In its appeal, Sadeen is insisting the area of the proposed development “is not by definition public since it was granted to Sadeen, following the parliamentary resolution, by title of emphyteusis.”

Sadeen was reacting to one of the main reasons given by the Planning Authority board for refusing a permit for its expansive extension in Bormla, on grounds that the new blocks “result in a loss of public open space within an urban area.”

Sadeen instead referred to the spaces affected by the project as “utilitarian” and not “public spaces” because of their use as a “makeshift car park and boat yard”, which do not contribute to the character of the area.

Moreover, Sadeen insisted that the staircase area, an area which Bormla residents do not want to be built up, will be developed as an “open air theatre with an umbrella like structure aimed at enhancing space.”

In their appeal Sadeen claim that the photomontages of the project, which they had themselves submitted, “give an incorrect impression of the static status of the vicinity”, not taking in consideration “the animated status of the surrounding built environment.”

Sadeen said it did so to dispute the PA board’s conclusion that the project would “obstruct” views of Senglea Gate and the adjacent fortifications.

As regards the proposed dormitory block in St Paul’s Square, described as “excessive and out of scale” by the PA board, Sadeen is insisting that they are prepared to make changes to plans as suggested by the case officer, who recommended that a final decision on this part of the project should have been taken at a later stage.

But the developers defended the principle of having a dormitory erected on the public square, adding that this will include parking facilities “which will be of great benefit to surroundings” while improving the traffic situation.

Moreover, they also claim that the proposed development aims to make the Cottonera area a student city, which will enhance the regeneration of the area.   

The developers are insisting that the PA board was mistaken in disregarding the case officer’s recommendation to approve the project because the project conforms to a development brief issued in 2015.

PA chairman Vince Cassar had shot down this argument, saying that a significant amount of time had passed since 2015 and that the heritage aspect had to be protected more than ever.