Sliema wants MEPA to turn down ‘non-starter’ 40-storey tower
Sliema council calls for scheduling of Fort Cambridge barracks and urges MEPA to consider Tigné tower project as a ‘non-starter’
The Sliema local council has called on the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to respect development briefs limiting the height of projects at the Fort Cambridge barracks to four storeys.
The development brief which limits the height of any project approved on the site of the barracks to four storeys has already been approved. The planning authority however insists that the policy was superseded by a new policy allowing hotels to add an unlimited number of floors when these constitute a "landmark".
It was during Christmas period that MEPA issued a public consultation inviting the public to submit its comments on a 40-storey hotel development being proposed by GAP Holdings. The hotel is being proposed atop Fort Cambridge’s former officers’ mess.
"This project not only ignores these policies but proposes the exact contrary of what they aspire to. In view of this, the project to all intents and purposes should be considered by MEPA as a non-starter," the Sliema local council said.
Once again, the local council urged MEPA to include the Fort Cambridge building in its list of protected listed buildings, noting that other buildings of less importance in the immediate vicinity have also been granted Grade 2 protection.
The council has argued that the application is proposing the demolition of the historical buildings' facade overlooking Tigné Street as well as the internal demolition of most of the buildings. The policy allowing MEPA to approve high-rise hotel developments does not apply to listed buildings.
The council took the opportunity to call for extensive studies on traffic, shading, pollution and the social impact of the project.
A project development statement recently submitted by the developers warned that that the new hotel may encourage “further investment in commercial activities”, which could result in “pressures on existing uses, which could be residential, to be elbowed out of the area”.