Planning officials recommend refusal of 55-unit Marsaskala rooftop extension

Planning officials are recommending the refusal of a large-scale vertical extension to the Lay Lay Blocks in Marsaskala, a proposal that would increase the height of an existing residential complex from 4 to 8 levels.

In a noteworthy assessment, the case officer placed particular emphasis on parking shortfalls and the cumulative density impacts — issues often raised in objections but less frequently forming the main basis for refusal.

The case, application PA/03995/23, is scheduled to be decided by the Planning Commission on April 20, 2026.

The outline application, submitted by Michael Axisa’s Lay Lay Block, seeks permission to add 55 new residential units on top of the existing four-storey block located along Triq in-Nadur, Triq l-Orangjo, Triq l-Ghassies and Triq Vittorio Cassar.

The proposal involves constructing 20 apartments at third-floor level, 17 units at a partly recessed fourth floor, 12 to 14 units at a partly recessed fifth floor, and six additional units at a recessed top level.

The scheme would also introduce four lifts and connecting bridges within the internal courtyard to serve the additional dwellings. The development would increase the height of the existing building from 4 to 8 levels.

Planning officers acknowledge that, in principle, the proposed height — reaching approximately 22 metres — falls within the allowable limits for the area. The stepped massing, setbacks and façade design were also deemed acceptable and in line with policy requirements, with the architectural approach replicating the lower floors. The individual units were considered compliant with minimum dwelling size standards and design guidelines.

However, the Development Management Directorate concluded that the scale of intensification would significantly increase residential density without adequate supporting infrastructure.

The report highlights that the addition of 55 units would generate a requirement for at least 63 on-site parking spaces. No parking is being provided within the site, which already lacks parking for existing residents. The officer stressed that this shortfall runs counter to Development Control policy P18, particularly in an already dense residential area with high parking demand.

Concerns were also raised regarding refuse management. The proposed refuse areas located near the main entrances were considered inadequate for a development of this magnitude and likely to negatively affect existing residents. Policy P46 requires a comprehensive refuse solution for high-density developments, which the report states have not been satisfactorily addressed.

This recommendation is particularly significant because refusal is being proposed primarily on the basis of parking shortfalls and the cumulative density impacts of the development. While the proposal was found acceptable in terms of height, design and zoning, planning officials concluded that the intensity of development, combined with the absence of supporting infrastructure, would undermine residential amenity in the surrounding area.

Numerous public representations also objected to the proposal, citing height, volume transition and parking pressures.

The case officer therefore recommended refusal on two main grounds: the absence of adequate parking provision and the lack of a viable refuse management strategy, both seen as conflicting with policies aimed at protecting urban amenity.