Court revokes planning permission for Sliema hotel project

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of residents and NGOs opposing a controversial hotel development in Sliema, revoking the planning permission previously granted by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT). 

The decision, issued by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, emphasised the protection of residential zones and adherence to local planning policies.

The appeal, spearheaded by Moviment Graffitti alongside residents and environmental activists, challenged a decision permitting the development of an 11-storey hotel in a residential area between Sliema and Gżira.

The proposal included the demolition of an existing structure and construction of an 11-storey building comprising a hotel, spa, gym, restaurant, and parking facilities.

Central to the appellants’ argument was the assertion that the project violated the North Harbours Local Plan, which prioritises residential use in the area. They argued that the hotel would significantly impact the neighbourhood’s residential character, contravening guidelines aimed at preserving local amenity and quality of life.

Additionally, the site in question was not designated for hotel development. The court examined whether the flexibility policy, which allows deviations from local plans under exceptional circumstances, could justify the project. 

The tribunal had previously argued that the proximity of the site to the seafront and existing commercial activity in the vicinity constituted “overriding reasons” for approving the development. 

However, the Court of Appeal found this interpretation flawed, stating that such reasons must be extraordinary and dominant. It highlighted that the surrounding area lacked the substantial commercial commitments necessary to warrant applying the flexibility policy.

Furthermore, the court criticised the tribunal for overstepping its mandate by suggesting that the development could be reconsidered as a hostel, an alternative use that complies with local policy. 

Judge Mark Chetcuti said that planning decisions should evaluate the proposal as submitted by the applicant and not propose substantive changes. Ultimately, the court annulled the tribunal’s partial approval of the project, revoking the planning application entirely. 

In a statement, Moviment Graffitti said: “Today, the court agreed with us that a hotel cannot legally be constructed in the area and that the EPRT had no right to revert the application for reassessment by the PA as a hostel.”

Lawyer Claire Bonello represented the appellants on this case.