Tista’ taqra bil-
Malti.
A development application to replace the Tigullio nightclub in St Julians with a Lidl supermarket was quietly withdrawn during screening, before the Environment and Resources Authority had the opportunity to properly assess the plans for the ODZ site.
The absence of information had led Transport Malta to provisionally object to the plans, in light of their potential transport impacts in an area whose infrastructure already struggles to keep up with demand.
The planning application by Lidl Immobiliare Malta, which used the services of architect Edwin Mintoff, was filed last November. But as it was still at an early stage, the application had not been public until it was withdrawn this summer.
The application confirmed that Lidl had not yet acquired the site, with the company stating that the application was being made with the consent of its owner.
The plans foresaw the total demolition of the existing nightclub, which lies outside of the development zone in the Wied Għomor valley bed, and its replacement with a building comprising a ground floor car park with 100 car spaces, with an overlying supermarket, topped with a “public green roof.” The proposed supermarket building would have been considerably larger than the present nightclub, taking up most of the site’s footprint, including much of the existing open space.
The application was withdrawn by Lidl Immobiliare itself; it remains to be seen whether other plans for the ODZ site will follow.
ERA does not object to extending ‘temporary’ padel courts
At present, there is another pending application concerning the Tigullio, but one unrelated to the apparently-aborted supermarket plans: plans to extend a “temporary” padel court at the back of the property for another year. The original permit conditions had required the structures to be dismantled by last June.
The plans had been contentious, attracting the objections of the St Julians local council then led by mayor – now MP – Albert Buttigieg.
Buttigieg also objected to the planned permit renewal, stating that it appeared to confirm that the structures were not actually intended to be temporary in the first place.
He and others also objected to extending the artificial coverage of the valley floor, in light of the flooding risk which it brought.
But the objectors’ concerns do not appear to be shared by the Environment and Resources Authority, with the ERA emphasising in a consultation document submitted just this week that the plans constituted a renewal of an existing permit – even if one which required the structures to be dismantled in the space of a year.
The application is still awaiting the assessment of a case officer, but the ERA’s blessing appears to make the granting of a permit highly likely.
