Villa no, hotel yes: How ERA blundered on Dingli hotel

The environmental watchdog found itself in the line of fire after changing its position three times on a controversial request to build a hotel at Dingli Cliffs, replacing a disused explosives factory.

Environment and Resources Authority chairman Victor Axiak’s vote against the proposed hotel at this week’s Planning Authority board meeting was a face-saver for the ERA, which reversed a strange and unexplained U-turn.

This is because during last Thursday’s meeting it emerged that in 2020 the ERA had objected to the development a single dwelling and office block on the same site. Originally in 2017, the ERA had also objected to La Toc Limited’s proposal for a hotel on the Dingli site, warning of the future difficulty to contain similar development within the committed area for “utility services and drainage systems, and longer-term development pressures to extend the established development.”

Subsequently in 2020, the Bilom Group’s Michael Bugeja proposed the redevelopment of the explosives factory into a residential unit, an administration block and a pool.  But the ERA said the factory should “not be used as a pretext to gain further development permissions and expanding the range of land uses in this particular area”. Bugeja’s sizeable urban development threatened the secluded and natural feel of this sensitive area in Dingli, a proposal the ERA said was in breach of the SPED’s provisions that rural areas do not get exploited for unnecessary uses.

ERA also warned that “experience has shown that commitments for development such as this proposal are almost irreversible once they are allowed to become established”.

After its withdrawal, the application was immediately followed up by Sun Route Ltd’s 14-unit hotel, spread over 10 one-storey blocks, and a communal pool. Again in September 2020, the ERA welcomed the project’s downscaling but said it did not support the principle that the explosives factory “should serve as a pretext for committing sites for further development.”

Yet in March 2021 it inexplicably reversed its position in a screening report in which it said it “has no objection to the proposal”, and even said the project’s environmental impacts did not warrant an Environment Impact Assessment.

During last Thursday’s PA board meeting, Victor Axiak recognised the project’s downsizing but then announced he was still against the development, arguing that tourism facilities are best located in the village of Dingli.

Axiak’s declaration was a blow for the developers, whose architect had constantly referred to the ERA’s go-ahead for the project. Right up until the moment Axiak pronounced himself against the development, the meeting appeared to be headed in favour of the development, because the planning directorate’s case officer was making a case in favour, while the PA executive chairman Martin Saliba actually intervened to refute arguments made by objectors.

Axiak’s shocker saw six board members, including Planning Authority board chairman Vince Cassar, declare their intention to overrule the case officer and reject the application. A final decision is expected in the next weeks.