PA defers decision on Birgu kiosks deemed ‘objectionable in principle’

The Planning Authority has deferred a decision on an application to regularise two kiosks and outdoor seating in the historic Birgu ditch.

The postponement comes despite strong objections from both the Development and Management Directorate and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage to the application.

Chaired by Elizabeth Ellul, the Planning Commission accepted the Birgu Regatta Club’s request to postpone the decision by three months, allowing more time for discussions with the objecting authorities. The decision overruled the Development Management Directorate which had described the application as “objectionable in principle” and recommended outright refusal.

The directorate cited policy breaches and the visual impact on scheduled fortifications as reasons for its objections. The kiosks and seating were installed in the ditch below the Birgu Bastions along Kalkara Creek without permission.

Although the directorate is tasked with assessing applications against planning policy and making formal recommendations, the commission chose to defer its ruling rather than endorse the refusal.

In a case officer report meant to guide the Planning Commission, the directorate also flagged a large tented structure for which a temporary permit issued to the local council expired in January 2025. Since the applicants were not seeking to sanction the tent, the directorate said the application runs counter to regulations requiring all illegalities on site to be addressed before any development can be approved.

The officer further agreed with the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage which had expressed “grave concern” warning that sanctioning the kiosks would negatively affect the setting and legibility of the scheduled fortifications.

The kiosks, the officer noted, add to the visual clutter of the area.

The proposal also fails to meet kiosk policies, among them the limitations on footprint (20sq.m) and height (2.5m). The kiosks in question occupy roughly 60sq.m and are 3.41m high.

Crucially, both kiosk and outdoor seating policies prohibit the placement of tables and chairs directly adjacent to kiosks.

Given these breaches, the directorate concluded there was no need to request revisions from the applicant’s architect, stating that the proposal is “objectionable in principle.”