Grotta disco in Xlendi regularised after 30-year saga

PA imposes €59,150 planning gain in return for sanctioning illegalities in the protected area • Illegal car park to be reinstated back to agricultural use 

A Google Earth screen capture of the Grotta nightclub
A Google Earth screen capture of the Grotta nightclub

The Planning Authority has regularised illegal additions to the Grotta nightclub, which was built along the road linking Victoria to Xlendi. 

The disco is perched on the idyllic Lunzjata Valley, which is protected and considered an area of high landscape value. The club is owned by businessman George Said who is also a member of the Gozo Channel’s Board of Directors. 

The application, originally presented in 2017, aims to regularise changes in the property footprint, vertical and lateral extensions, and internal and external alterations, including development carried out in a cave where a bar and dance floor with ancillary facilities are located. 

The only planning permit for the entertainment complex was issued in 1995, even though the nightclub already had an operating licence. The permit foresaw the replacement of a deteriorated wooden gazebo on top of an existing dance floor with a larger gazebo, over a bigger dance floor, and the creation of another covered dance floor to cater for both the winter and summer seasons. 

The night club is located at the cliff edge, at the side of Wied ix-Xlendi, where the valley itself has a very rich ecosystem characterised by diverse habitats that host a wide range of species. 

Throughout its history, the site has been the subject of a number of planning enforcements, with the first notice issued in 1994 against the change of use of land into a parking area. 

In 1998, a planning enforcement was issued against the erection of structures in the cave, followed by another in 1999 against the illegal expansion of the nightclub. This enforcement notice listed all the illegalities at La Grotta which included “structures on different levels, including a pizzeria, stores, bars, toilets, terraces and stairs, and accommodation rooms found at the entrance down to the valley, along the entire complex of La Grotta.”   

According to the case office report the present application has been subject to an environmental assessment by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA)  

ERA initially expressed concern over the various environmental impacts of the development, including the change in the natural site characteristics, intensification of built development, the formalisation of the valley side, land take-up, and increased light and noise pollution. 

“All these interventions were carried out without due respect to the site’s context and sensitivity, and irrespective of environmental impacts,” the environmental watchdog had concluded. 

However, ERA eventually changed its stance, agreeing to the sanctioning while imposing a number of conditions. 

The Superintendence for Cultural Heritage also gave its go-ahead for the regularisation of illegalities despite expressing “its general concern regarding unauthorised interventions on significant vernacular features” which included rock cut features associated with animal husbandry that are found in the cave area. 

This includes the restoration of an area illegally used as a car park, which is to be reinstated to its original agricultural use. The Planning Directorate is recommending that a bank guarantee of €29,300 be imposed to ensure that this obligation is carried out. 

Furthermore, a planning gain of €59,150 towards the PA’s Planning Fund is being recommended. The funds raised from the planning gain shall be used to fund environmental improvement projects in the locality of the site. The planning gain is non-refundable, and the funds shall be utilised as required and directed by the Planning Authority. 

The case officer also recommended approval, after taking into consideration that the site is covered by a valid operational licence and a planning permit for commercial use. 

Moreover, approval does not involve the take-up of additional land beyond the original committed boundary of the development.  The case officer added that vertical extensions to be sanctioned “can be considered acceptable within the existing context, and are mostly screened from the public road”.