Planning CEO denies claims he ‘defended’ hotelier’s planning application

The Planning Authority is denying allegations made by environmental NGO Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar (FAA), in which it alleged that executive chairperson Johann Buttigieg defended a hotel developer at a public hearing meeting last week.

FAA said Buttigieg used his Planning Board seat to defend developer Michaela Stivala’s eight-storey hotel in Gżira. It said it was “disgusted” by Buttigieg’s behaviour during the hearing for the hotel application by Stivala, who also serves as the Malta Development Association's general secretary.

Buttigieg replied today in a statement from the PA that the FAA had “unprofessionally chose to select and quote out of context” what was said during the discussion.

Stivala owns the four-storey Blubay Hotel & Apartments and is now seeking planning permission to double the building’s height, which the FAA alleges are a series of “piecemeal applications”. 

Buttigieg, the NGO alleged, leapt to Stivala’s defence during the board meeting when the applicant was asked why his application would result in fewer, rather than more, parking spaces. “Are the parking facilities on site even used?” Buttigieg was alleged to have mused out aloud.  

FAA claimed that when the Planning Board noted that local plans for the area only allowed for hostels rather than hotels, Buttigieg intervened to say that “there are many hotels built in areas which are not designated for hotels”, and that when fellow board member asked if he thought it was a good thing, Buttigieg rebutted, “No, just stating it”.

FAA says the application should never have been heard by the Planning Board in the first place, which usually concerns itself with large-scale projects, because this ensured the presence of Buttigieg.

On his part, the CEO said he had no voting rights on the Planning Board and that it was his duty, according to law, to give advice to the Planning Board on matters discussed by the same board.

“The Executive Chairperson, during the discussion, drew the attention of the board that the applicant had two main options to consider: the first option is to revert the use of the hotel back to a hostel and therefore retain the existing building in height. With this option, the Board may consider granting planning permission for the change of use of the adjoining property from a residence into a hostel and will serve as an extension to the existing hostel.

“The second option was to retain the use as a hotel and extend vertically to include the additional floors permitted over hotel development, and to remove the proposed lateral extension of the hotel which take over the neighbouring residence. Any additional floors should include setbacks and other mitigation measures to avoid blank party walls. In fact, the Board deferred this planning application and gave the applicant the chance to evaluate whether to amend, withdraw or retain the planning application proposal,” the PA said in a statement.

The PA also clarified that the hotel planning application was not ‘undelegated’ on the request of the executive chairperson, but that it was the PA’s planning commission which requested that this planning application is sent to the Planning Board for a decision.