PA Board approves Fortina Spa Resort re-development
The Planning Authority (PA) Board yesterday approved a planning application that will see the Fortina Hotel tower rise by five additional storeys. Three members voted against.
The application is for the “Demolition of existing four-star hotel and the Spa Wing of the five-star hotel, and excavation of site. Construction of three levels of below-ground car parking; construction of ground floor retail complex under a landscaped Public Open Space; and construction of residential complex rising to a maximum of 15 floors above street level. Development also to include complete refurbishment (including internal alterations) of the existing five-star hotel, the construction of five additional floors on the hotel tower and construction of stepped hotel block rising to 13 floors above the plaza, in place of the Spa Wing.”
The car park would accommodate 400 cars, the architect said, and the five-star hotel would rise to a total of 22 floors. The architect said that a 13 storey block in place of the spa block will be constructed for a total of 240 hotel rooms (previously 128 rooms), the architect said. There will also be 108 residential units, the architect told the board.
The proposed floor area for the project stands at 23,850 square metres. The PA, in a statement later in the day, said that “over 2,500 square metres of undeveloped land and the current gardens of the hotels will be turned and upgraded into a two tier plaza area with soft and hard landscaping. The plazas will also serve as a new pedestrian link between the Tigne seafront and the inner part of Tigne through Triq Censu Xerri.”
A number of concerns were raised. Some argued that the site is public land, designated solely for hotel use and thus if there are to be retail outlets and private luxury residential apartments built on the site of the four-star Hotel Fortina, extending into the existing five-star garden and pool area, the land should now be re-zoned.
The case officer noted that the proposed development did not run counter to conditions under which it was let/given on emphyteusis and no third-party rights were being infringed by proposed development. He noted that the architect had uploaded Government Property Division (GPD) clearance documentation as part of the ownership notifications. The site was also designated for both hotel and residential use, the case officer said during the presentation.
Paul Radmilli, from the Sliema Local Council, said that the case officer’s report referred to a letter sent by the Government Property Division (GPD), which he said was a preliminary position by the GPD, not a final position. He said that the letter also stated that any development on public land had to be in conformity with the emphyteusis agreement. He said that on public land, what was written in the em- phyteusis was what mattered.
He stressed that this development would see 620 car trips per day, and thus traffic would increase, not decrease. “Saying that the impact of traffic on ix-Xatt Ta’ Tigne will be negligible does not sound right.”
He stressed the need to know the impact in terms of the time people will spend in traffic.
The applicant’s lawyer said the land was private. He said that that if the government held any rights, they were not to be tied to the permission and were civil matters.
Accoring to Bjorn Bonello, the traffic expert, when the Traffic Impact Assessment was drawn up, there was a detailed breakdown as to what causes the traffic. He said that the issue in Sliema was peak spreading, rather than car numbers. He mentioned that there were issues with certain existent junctions. He said that little things were causing problems, like delivery stops and the like.
He clarified that the 600-car traffic increase was over a 24-hour period, not hourly. He said that every development should have a bit of surplus parking.
PA executive chairman Johann Buttigieg said that the PA’s priority was still a modal shift and the priorities hadn’t changed. “On the other hand, where there are strategic sites which can provide parking provision then we should go for them. There should be spare capacity; otherwise, we will all end up in a straight jacket.”
One resident said that residents were aggravated, stating that the way they were currently digging on the site was like an earthquake with the digger. He mentioned the government contract with Fortina, asking if it had been scrapped. He mentioned that part of the back side was not meant to rise more than four storeys, as listed in the contract of sale, in order to safeguard the residents. A couple of other residents backed these statements.
Another resident mentioned that the project would reduce the natural light more.
One resident questioned how the contract could be brushed off, and the applicant’s lawyer said that it was not being brushed off, but that the decision had no impact as this would be a civil question, not a planning one.
Paul Radmilli said that it would be better to verify the contract first, and that the Planning Authority had a lawyer.
Johann Buttigieg said every permit was subject to third-party rights, and said the Lands Authority had given clearance for the application, and that the PA was not the one to decide upon such an issue.
PN representative Marthese Portelli, eNGO representative Annick Bonello and the local council representative voted against the application, highlighting that the FAR policy being quoted as a basis for part of the construction is not fully in place as the site is not surrounded by streets on all sides.