Urge db to rethink Pembroke project, Church commission tells Hard Rock International

The Catholic Church Environment Commission (KA) has asked the Chairperson of Hard Rock international to reconsider its plans within the db Pembroke Project, and urge the developers to rethink the Project all together. 

The KA Chairperson, Mario Camenzuli, wrote to the Chairman of the Hard Rock Hotel International, Jim Allen, about the controversial project in Pembroke. 

In the letter, the commission asked Hard Rock to live up to their motto – “Love All – Serve All, All in One, Take Time To be Kind, Save the Planet”, and ask the developers to rethink the project proposal.

“Hard Rock Hotels’ motto is almost offensive and insensitive to the Pembroke community, which would suffer all the negative impacts of this development if this proposal were to be approved,” Caminzuli said.

KA said that they were particularly concerned over development in the construction agency, given the geographical limitations of the islands.

The commission also said it submitted its objections to the Malta Planning Authority in relation to the development permit application of the project.

“The proposed development by db Group at St George’s Bay runs roughshod over a planning system that is meant to create and serve sustainable communities,” the commission said.

"Such a system does not keep the common good as its main objective, and is therefore bound to create hardships for communities and to profit speculators who, in this particular case, are also being supported by Government that is granting land to them.”

The commission urged the PA to monitor and publish reports on how the policies that it and the Government are approving impact communities.

The Commission highlighted some key objections it had to the db Group plans:

1. Developers’ failure to respect the floor-to-area ratio, with buildings higher than they ought to be and less public open space than claimed.
2. Little to no consideration for the impact the massive-scale project would have on traffic, residents living in its shadows, or the area’s visual landscape.
3. The fact that the project is so large that major infrastructural projects would be required to effectively address the volume of traffic the development would generate.
4. Potential negative impact to a Natura 2000 site nearby.

Read the letter here: