Qajjenza development on Enemalta land downscaled

Latest plan still envisages development of up to 22m but buildings has been shifted to northern part of site away from the coast road 

Birds eye view of the Enemalta site (highlighted) on the Qajjenza shoreline
Birds eye view of the Enemalta site (highlighted) on the Qajjenza shoreline

Developer Paul Attard has presented new plans for commercial and residential development on the site of the decommissioned LPG plant in Qajjenza on a site partly owned by Enemalta.

The latest proposal does not include any development on the area facing Triq il-Qajjenza and the coastline while concentrating the commercial and residential development on the northern part of the site along a new road cutting through the site.

The new plans include three residential blocks rising to 19.3m (the equivalent of six floors) located on the privately owned part of the site and three commercial blocks rising to 22m (the equivalent of seven floors) on a part of the site owned by Enemalta.   

The rest of the site is identified for landscaping and a car park with a public open space above it.

The existing concrete canopy which is considered a landmark of modernist architecture will be retained.

Minister Miriam Dalli whose portfolio includes the majority state owned Enemalta had distanced herself from the real estate project upon seeing photomontages of the new development published by MaltaToday in June.

The photomontage was later removed from the Planning Authority’s public information system.

The visual itself presented by architect Stephan Vancell was based on plans earmarking the site for six blocks with a height of between 22m and 35.5m, which had been in the public domain since October 2023.  

Enemalta had previously granted consent to the zoning application, which seeks a change in the local plan that currently limits development in the area to three floors rising to four floors by the seafront. 

In her reaction last June, the minister said the government and Enemalta were not aware of this visual before it was uploaded by the developer and went on to describe the scale of the proposed development as “unacceptable” and called for it to be changed.

The development was first proposed in a zoning application presented by Paul Attard’s Plan Limited last year even though Enemalta  owns 13,561sq.m of the the 23,906sq.m site.  Another 3,408sq.m of land is owned by the government.

In the application Attard declared that he is not the sole owner of the site in question but has submitted forms indicating that he has notified the landowners of his intention. 

The site was included in the development boundaries in the 2006 extension.

The decommissioning of the Qajjenza liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) plant was approved in 2014 following the transfer of operations from Qajjenza to a new LPG cylinder filling facility developed by Gasco Malta Limited in Birżebbuġa.

What does the local plan say?

The local plan identifies the part of the Qajjenza seafront directly facing the sea to development of up to ‘four floors’ which according to a policy introduced in 2015, is the equivalent to a metric height of between 19.9 and 22 meters where a semi basement is allowed.

The local plan does not identify a height limitation in the onshore areas presently identified for development. But in other parts of Qajjenza which do not directly face the promenade, heights are limited to 3 floors which is translated to a height of between 15.4 meters and 17.5 meters if a semi basement is allowed. 

Project as proposed Area in orange identified for 19 metres and area in purple for 22 metres
Project as proposed Area in orange identified for 19 metres and area in purple for 22 metres

Environmentalists, sometimes vindicated by the law courts have always insisted that the height in floors set in the local plan should prevail over Annex 2.

In the case of the former LPG tank site, the local plan allows four floors by the sea front and 3 floors further inshore. But no height limitation is set for most of the site, part of which is also earmarked for the development of a boat-trailer depot.

Therefore, the new development applies the maximum metric height limitation which is presently applicable to development facing the promenade to development which is further away from the coast. 

But in this case the developer has shifted the development from the coastline further inshore.