The Planning Authority Board has indicated that it will refuse a controversial application to expand the American University of Malta campus in Cospiqua, overturning the recommendation of the application’s case officer.

The reasons for refusal were namely cited as being the loss of open space due to a proposed office block which will be built over a recently inaugurated open stairs area, and over the effect that a new wing to the Knights’ Building will have on the views of the Senglea fortifications, with photomontages indicating that the new wing would have covered the view of St. Michael’s Gate as seen from Cospicua.

Since the application’s case officer had initially recommended that permission be granted, the PA board will have to meet again to ratify its refusal, although it can change its decision and approve the project if they feel that the applicant has addressed the reasons of refusal.

PA Board Chairman Vince Cassar led the objections to the application, noting that he was not convinced on the design for the office block, and could not approve the extension to the Knights’ Building due to how it covers the Senglea bastions.

ERA Chairman Victor Axiak was also against the application, addressing the members of the AUM present and saying that “this is like grafting a tissue onto an already existing body; the grafting will only be successful if the community is ready to accept it.  If the community is not welcoming it and is not happy, there will be a tissue rejection.”

The government’s Clayton Bartolo also cited concerns about how the bastions – which are going to be subject to a €2.9 million restoration project – will be covered, while the PN’s Marthese Portelli’s main concern was on the loss of open space, noting that as soon as a structure is built on an open space, it ceases to remain open.

Cospicua mayor Alison Zerafa Civelli meanwhile also expressed her concerns against the project and declared that she would be voting against it.

Members of NGOs and of the public made their presence known at the meeting, with a number of interventions – all of which against the project.

Rebecca Cremona, representing a coalition of NGOs, noted that 1,937 signatures to a petition against the project had been gathered, while environmentalist Claire Bonello questioned the legality of the decision to exclude the decision on a proposed dormitory from this sitting.

Architect Tara Cassar called the fact that 500 parking spaces less than the required amount were being proposed “ridiculous” and based purely on assumptions, a sentiment which was reiterated by Flimkien Ghall-Ambjent Ahjar’s Jorg Sicot.

Senglea deputy mayor Anthony Bonavia said that the project would continue to suffocate Senglea, while various residents – including former Labour Cospicua councillor John Vella – also expressed their disagreement with the project.

The solitary intervention in favour of the project came from Louis Walker – AUM’s own President.

He read a prepared speech and spoke of his belief that a strong and successful university at Dock 1 will provide enormous benefit to the community, and noted that if too much focus is given to the short run, the there is the risk that future gains are destroyed. He said that the University needs more classrooms, laboratories and recreational spaces, and said that the AUM will continue to emphasise its own social responsibility to the residents of the Cottonera area, and enhancing its economy.

That Walker’s intervention was the only one which was not followed by applause from those present is a good indicator of the sentiments of all those present.

With the votes against seemingly piling up, the applicant asked for the project to be deferred by a month so that they could address the concerns brought up, but this was rebuked by Cassar who said that by law a vote had to take place.

 

The AUM had planned to extend its campus into a derelict building which is known as the Knights’ Building on the old dock front, turning it into an educational institution by making internal alterations and constructing an additional floor in steel and glass over and above the building’s current height.

The Knights’ Building would have held facilities such as a bookshop, exhibition spaces, 11 laboratories, two common rooms, two seminar rooms, and 33 classrooms amongst other facilities spread across seven floors.

A new wing for the Knights’ Building was also part of the plans, while an administrative building was slated for an open space adjacent to the Knights’ Building, with plans showing that it will have the same height as the Knights’ Building.

That open space was only recently inaugurated, having been revamped using EU funds to provide better accessibility between upper Cospicua and the Dock 1 area, and the proposal entails the uprooting of two trees. The applicants however say the existing concrete stairway will be retained.

 

The site is located within an Urban Conservation Area, and is subject to the Cottonera Development Brief, while the former submarine workshop, galley stores, and the sail loft of Dock 1 are also proposed to be scheduled. 

The Case Officer’s report noted that the whole site is located in an Area of High Landscape Value due to the Harbour Fortifications, Photomontages show that the new building near the Knights Building will however obstruct views of the historical Senglea fortifications.

A four-storey student accommodation block, which had an underground car park with it was also slated for a car park above Dock 1, which leads up to Senglea Gate, as part of this application, but this was taken off the table last August with the Planning Authority instructing them to go back to the drawing board and return with a new application within six months.  The proposed car park however was considered as part of this application.

Even though the dormitory itself was not decided today, various new designs were shared by Mintoff, noting that all the options were of significantly lower volume and had less of a height and visual impact on the area.  In fact, Project Architect Edwin Mintoff presented various iterations and designs during the meeting, some of which based on the building which used to stand in the area prior to the Second World War, although these were greeted with disdain by the public.

The decision on the dormitory will depend on another application which has to be filed separately.