How Naxxar mayor, minority leader defended high-rise vote

Naxxar residents are railing against their local council, after mayor Anne-Marie Muscat Fenech Adami did not vote against a high-rise on the car park of the former trade fair grounds, despite the public’s opposition to the two-tower complex.

The Naxxar council did not even take a formal vote on how its representative on the Planning Authority board should vote on the 10-storey building.

Minutes of the October meeting that discussed the project, state that the decision was to informed the PA that the council “wishes that the development is not so high and that the open spaces are maintained by the developer.”

Bernard Grech tells Naxxar mayor to resign over conflict of interest

Subsequently, a note was sent by the PA in which the council welcomed several improvements made over a previous application, while reiterating its concern on the proposed height. “One needs to appreciate that this development is very close to the urban conservation area, and therefore the Council would preferably see a lower development,” the council said in its representation dated 2 November.

But both the PN mayor, and Labour minority leader Marlon Brincat, insisted with MaltaToday that the vote reflected the 27 October discussion between councillors.

It was only PN councillor Joe Spiteri who argued that the ten-storey development was unsuitable for Naxxar, warning it would set a precedent for other high-rise buildings, and expressing a preference for a five-storey development.

Yet both Muscat Fenech Adami and Brincat argued that the choice was limited to either a five-storey development covering the entire site, or applying the ‘floor-area ratio’, the mechanism that retains half the site as open public space in return for taller heights.

At no stage was a vote requested or taken, to determine whether the council should vote in favor or against the project.

Contacted by MaltaToday, the Naxxar mayor failed to explain why no vote was ever taken to determine how the council should vote in last Thursday’s planning board meeting, but she gave a lengthy explanation on how her vote reflected the considerations made during the council meeting.

She pointed that since the whole area is zoned by the Planning Authority for five-storey developments, there was nothing the council could do to stop the developer from building on this site. “While most objectors think the site can be left undeveloped and turned into a garden, this was not possible,” she said.

The policy made the site eligible for the FAR mechanism, allowing heights of up to 42m – even higher than the 31m-high tower approved on Thursday, in return for keeping half the site as a public open space.

The mayor contrasted this with a previous application by another developer, on the same site, which the council had opposed, noting this included a massive high-rise block, a supermarket and large parts of the public open spaces roofed over. She noted that the new developers took on board many of the changes requested by the council and other objectors.

“They considered all the objections made and made amends on everything, except on the height issue, which was inevitable because they were applying the FAR policy,” the mayor said.

She also said that only 28 new objections were made to the latest plans, and that the council organised an online public discussion “to explain to the public what can and can’t take place on the site.” Subsequently, the council met to take a position on the development in a meeting open to the public.

She contended that a “decision was made by the council”, based on a number of considerations: that the land cannot be left undeveloped, the choice was between the expansive five-storey building and the open-space, 10-storey option, and that the open space “will be as big as St George Square in Valletta”, enjoyed by the public with a “decent” amount of parking spaces and a child-care centre.

Labour’s minority leader Marlon Brincat defended the mayor’s vote, insisting this reflected the considerations during the “lengthy and open” discussion the council had on this issue. He insisted that while the council would have preferred a lower building, it had no power to stop this from happening because the project conformed to existing policies.

He also blamed the local plans for paving the way for development in the area.

The two-tower complex will house 136 residential units, one of nine floors with a receded top floor and the other seven floors and a receded top floor. There will be four underground levels for a 356-space car park, 108 garages, a gymnasium and spa with indoor pool. A central open space is proposed between the two towers. At ground floor, the development will host 12 shops, two restaurants and cafeterias, one bar and a childcare centre.

The project is proposed by San Pawl tat-Targa Investments, which own the site. Virtù Properties (Portelli, Virtu Holdings) and Ziz Limited (Joseph Debono) own the company.

Unlike previous plans sent back to the drawing board by the PA in 2020, when the project was fronted by another company, the new development does not include a supermarket and office space.

Only PA board member Annick Bonello, the NGOs’ representative, voted against the project, expressing concern that large-scale applications in this area are not being approved in a holistic way, and that a proposed development inside the trade fair grounds proper was still pending.

She expressed concern that the 10-storey building is being proposed in an area 126m above sea level, which would permanently change the skyline of the whole island for the worst.

The FAR policy states that “tall buildings” should be restricted to a 25m contour above sea level. Project architect Edwin Mintoff rebutted, insisting that the 10-storey development is a medium-rise not a high-rise development, and therefore is not precluded by policy.

According to a Social Impact Assessment, 63% of Naxxar residents said they did not like having a ‘medium-rise’ in their locality, compared to just 25% who liked this component of this project.

While 32% preferred the current design of the project to covering the entire site with low-rise blocks, 16% preferred a five-storey development while “a high majority of 49% stated that they prefer none of the projects”.

The development was recommended for approval by the PA case officer despite strong objections by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage, especially due to impact on long distance views including those of the Mosta dome.